JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - In this second appeal by the defendant the relevant facts are as below : The plaintiff claimed that Northern Railway authorities had given him land measuring 50' x 40' with permission to construct the shop in the year 1959 over which he constructed five shops. In one of the shops he employed the defendant to work for him. Sometime in 1966 the area was constituted into Railway Settlement Notified Area under the Notified Areas Act. According to the case of the plaintiff his licence was converted into tenancy in the year 1966. Since the defendant had started defalcating he was removed from service and the plaintiff himself started sitting there. This led to proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C., but ultimately the same was decided in favour of the appellant-defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession over the shop and of the goods kept therein along with damages. 2. The defence was that the shop in question was constructed by the defendant himself after obtaining its site from the notified area committee. Other allegations made in the plaint were also denied. 3. The trial court decided all the material issues in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. However, on appeal the decision has been set aside and the appeal has been filed by the defendant, being aggrieved by the decision of the lower appellate court. 4. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the entire approach of the court below was erroneous inasmuch as the first question to be decided in the case was as to who was the tenant of the site and only then the question of ownership of the shops could arise. The learned counsel submitted that although the point for consideration framed by the court below was as to whether the shop belonged to the appellant yet the court has failed to consider the question as to whether the site was over let out to the plaintiff. 5. The only documents on which the plaintiff had relied upon was Ext. 18 & 19 which was a letter issued from the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Moradabad to the plaintiff on 29-9-1959. 5. The only documents on which the plaintiff had relied upon was Ext. 18 & 19 which was a letter issued from the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Moradabad to the plaintiff on 29-9-1959. According to this a piece of land measuring 50' x 40' in the traffic area belonging to the Railway was to be given to the plaintiff for opening a shop for sale of eatable etc. In the body of the letter it is mentioned that a copy of the agreement as well as a copy of the plan was being sent along with the letter. The period of licence mentioned in the letter is 1-5-1859 to 30-4-1960. Surprisingly the plaintiff has not filed either the agreement or the plan of land in respect of which the licence was granted to him. There is no other document connecting the grant of licence to the plaintiff. A receipt for Rs. 20/- has also been filed which had been issued by the Railway Authority to the plaintiff. The receipt is dated 2nd August, 1962 and the purpose of payment is shown as 'licence of opening the shop'. This receipt, however, does not indicate the period for which the same was issued. There is also no evidence to show the amount of licence if that had been agreed upon between the Railway Authority and the plaintiff. Some other documentary evidence has also been filed but in my opinion the same is not at all relevant. 6. As against this the defendant has filed the rent receipt issued by the concerned notified Area in favour of the defendant. The amount of rent is Rs. 30/- per month. Defendant's case is also supported by the evidence of D.W. 1 Gajendra Singh who happened to be the President of Notified Area, Rosa. He has also testified that the site of the shop had been let out to the defendant over which the shop was constructed by him. 7. Having gone through the Judgments of the two courts below and on perusal of the record I am of the opinion that the approach of the court below in the case was not in accordance with law since the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land in question was let out to him in 1966 by the Railway Settlement Notified Area. It has also not been proved that the shop in question had been constructed by the plaintiff. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed and the decree of the court below is set aside. The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs.