CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal coming up for orders, by consent of Counsel, it is taken up for final disposal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent, we dispose of the appeal by the following Judgment. in the course of our Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court. ( 2 ) THIS is defendant's appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 5-11-1982 made in C. S. No. 47 of 1981 on the file of the Civii Judge, Ralchur, ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit inter-alia alleging that the defendant was his tenant of the premises bearing M. No. 5. 6. 2. In Somwarpeth where the defendant was running a Boarding and Lodging in the name and style of 'soudager Lodge'. He further alleged that the premises was leased on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- under a registered lease deed dated 9-9-1371 for a period of 3 years; that on the expiry of the period stipulated in the lease, he demanded the defendant to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession. The defendant, on the other hand, agreed to pay enhanced rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month and requested that he may be allowed to continue as a tenant. In that circumstance, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to continue as a lessee of the suit premises in question and received in all on different dates a sum of Rs. 9,600/- towards the new agreed rent. The balance was not paid. Therefore, he got issued a lawyer's notice to which the defendant replied evasively with certain falsehood. Therefore, he filed the suit seeking a decree for the sum due for the suit premises and the arrears of rent at Rs. 2,000/- per month as on the date of the suit was Rs. 30,400/ -. ( 4 ) THE defendant resisted the suit inter-alia contending that he was the real owner of the suit premises, He had purchased the property in the name of his elder brother - the plaintiff who had no means at all to support himself. He also built the premises at his expense without obtaining the licence for the construction of the building from the Municipality and therefore there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the plaintiff. He also built the premises at his expense without obtaining the licence for the construction of the building from the Municipality and therefore there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the plaintiff. He further averred that the amounts paid in the sum of Rs. 9,600/- was by cash and by depositing the amounts in the Pigmy account and it was paid in order to assist the plaintiff - his elder brother ( 5 ) ON such pleadings, the Court framed the following issues: "1. Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant took the suit premises on lease for one year and agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/- rent per month? 2. Does the plaintiff prove that there are arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 30,000/- due from the defendant to the date of suit, as alleged? additional Issue: whether the deed is inadmissible and its terms and conditions cannot be enforced, as contended by the defendant in para 4 of his written statement?" ( 6 ) PLAINTIFF examined himself in support of his allegations in the plaint and the claim and got marked as many as six documents. While the defendant examined himself in support of his allegations in the written statement and got no documents marked in support of his stand. The trial Court had held in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit with costs together with interest thereon. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. ( 7 ) BEFORE us, Sri B. S. Ralkote, learned Counsel for the defendant has strenuously contended that the Court below erred in proceeding with the oral evidence of the plaintiff when the plaintiff's counsel himself had given up the case made out on the basis of Exhibit P-1, the original registered lease deed, the execution of which the defendant had denied. We do find that in the course of the arguments, the plaintiff's Counsel had said that the admisslbility or otherwise of the document may not be gone into as he would depend on other evidence, namely, the oral evidence of the plaintiff to sustain the claim of the plaintiff. We do find that in the course of the arguments, the plaintiff's Counsel had said that the admisslbility or otherwise of the document may not be gone into as he would depend on other evidence, namely, the oral evidence of the plaintiff to sustain the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court proceeded on the basis of the oral evidence on behalf of the plaintiff given by himself and the defendant in his own behalf and that alone be taken into account in finding out the truth or otherwise of the claim of the plaintiff. It has chosen to believe the version putforward by the plaintiff and therefore decreed the suit. In that circumstance, the learned Counsel contends that the trial Court was in error. Without establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant, the trial Court ought not to have proceeded to decree the suit. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, what really falls for determination by us in this appeal is, whether the trial Court was correct in decreeing the suit on the basis of Exhibit P-1. In a sense, there is some force in the contention advanced by Mr. B. S. Raikote, but in the ultimate analysis there is no substance. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff's Counsel gave up any part of his case founded on Exhibit p-1 or not, the Court was duty bound to take into account all the evidence that was placed before it. At the time Exhibit P-1 was marked, no objection was raised by the defendant for it being received in evidence. When he was confronted with his signature at Exhibit P-1 (c), he merely denied Exhibit P-1 (c) was his signature. Exhibit P-1 was not the suit document to create tenancy under which the defendant had agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as rent. It only evidenced the pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant from 1971 to 1979, the period of eight years mentioned in Exhibit P-1. Thereaftewards, the defendant was only a tenant by holdover, it is in that circumstance, as asserted by the plaintiff, under oath in his parole evidence, that a new oral lease came into being under which the defendant is said to have agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month. Thereaftewards, the defendant was only a tenant by holdover, it is in that circumstance, as asserted by the plaintiff, under oath in his parole evidence, that a new oral lease came into being under which the defendant is said to have agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month. if it was the defendant's case, as it was made out before us, that he continued to be a tenant only as before, then there should be some force in the contention of Mr. Ralkote that defendant's evidence should have been believed in preference to that of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) THE stand of the defendant is some what strange. In one breath he says that his brother is a man without any means and without any source of income and in the same breath he says on oath that he purchased the site on which the suit premises stood and that he constructed the building at his own expense without obtaining licence in the name of his brother. On account of this clear contradiction in the case of the defendant, we have examined the signature of the defendant found on the vakalath in the trial Court; on the vakalath in this Court; on the written statement in the trial Court and the signatures at Exhibit P-1 (c ). Exhibit P-1 (c) has not been admitted by the defendant. Even by naked eye comparison, the Court finds, it is very similar to the undisputed signatures of the defendant in the other documents. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, notwithstanding the fact that the Court below did not go into that aspect of the matter, we are satisfied that Exhibit P-1 established the relationship of landlord and tenant and that after the expiry of the period mentioned in Exhibit P-1, the relationship was continued by the tenant holding over. In that circumstance, the only thing the Court below was required to decide was which of the two parties was speaking the truth. If it has chosen the version of the plaintiff, we cannot find fault with the plaintiff's evidence. ( 11 ) NO case is made out by the defendant so that we may reject the truthful case of the plaintiff for reasons we have given. ( 12 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this appeal. it is dismissed with costs. ( 11 ) NO case is made out by the defendant so that we may reject the truthful case of the plaintiff for reasons we have given. ( 12 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this appeal. it is dismissed with costs. ( 13 ) IT appears that certain amounts have been paid by the appellant/defendant during the pendency of the appeal. In case the decree is executed, deduction ought to be given on proof of such payment.