JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar dated September 4, 1990 by which he allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit of ejectment on the ground of sub-letting. The facts of the case may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant from the shop No. 60, Kotwali Road, Sri Ganganagar on the ground of default in payment of rent, bonafide and reasonable necessity and sub-letting to one Ram Kumar. The ground of default was not pressed before trial Court as the determined amount of rent was deposited in time and monthly amount was also regularly deposited. The trial Court dismissed the suit deciding both the surviving grounds against the plaintiff. In appeal, the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity was not pressed. Only the ground of sub-letting was pressed. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff Gopiram had sub-let the suit shop to Ram Kumar and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit by its judgment under appeal. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned appellate Court has not considered the reasons given by the trial Court in support of its conclusion that sub-letting is not proved and has reversed this finding on untenable and inadmissible grounds. He further contended that the appellate Court committed a serious error in ignoring the entries Ex. A/5 to A/58 of the account-books of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store, the certificate Ex. 59 dated July 15, 1971 issued under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 in favour of Ram Kumar Proprietor M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store and the certificate Ex. A/60 issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act in the name of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store, Sri Ganganagar. He also contended that the appellate Court did not take into consideration that there was no evidence on record to prove that the possession of the demised shop was in fact given to the defendant Ratanlal at the time of commencement of the tenancy and there was complete lack of pleadings and proof as to when the possession of the suit shop was given by the defendant Ratanlal to the sub-tenant Ram Kumar and also about the terms and conditions of the alleged sub-tenancy. He also contended that the first appellate Court did not take into consideration that the plaintiff himself admitted in his cross-examination that since the commencement of the tenancy business under the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store was being carried on in the suit shop. Ram Kumar is sitting in the suit shop and the Gopi Ram is carrying on his cloth business under the name and style of M/s. Jain cloth Store in Gol Bazar, Sri Ganganagar. He further contended that the learned appellate Court failed to consider that in an ejectment suit the plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the defendant. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent duly supported the judgment under appeal. He contended that the defendant has failed to prove the case set up by him in his written statement, there is great variance in between his pleading and proof, the plaintiff can support the decree of ejectment on ground mentioned in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'). In the end he also contended that the appeal may be remanded to the first appellate Court for deciding it afresh. 5. The following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal :1. Whether the findings of the first appellate Court that the defendant Ratanlal has sub-let the suit shop to Ram Kumar are perverse ?2. Whether the plaintiff Gopi Ram is entitled to support the decree of ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act ? 6. In para No. 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has simply averred that the defendant has sub-let to suit shop without his permission to Ram Kumar son of Ramjilal Agrawal, Sri Ganganagar, he is not carrying on his business in it and is carrying on his business under the name and style of M/s. Jain Cloth Store in Gol Bazar, Sri Ganganagar. In reply to it, the defendant has averred in his written statement that the suit shop was in fact taken by his relative Ram Kumar for carrying on his ball bearing business under the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store and at the instance of the then landlord Nanak Chand (father of the plaintiff) the rent receipts were issued in his name as he was not knowing said Ram Kumar. After this written statement, the plaintiff amended his plaint and incorporated para 12-kha in it averring that the suit shop was let out to the defendant and not to Ram Kumar, since the beginning Ratan Lal is carrying on his business in the suit shop, he has sub-let it to Ram Kumar, possession of the suit shop has been transferred to Ram Kumar, the defendant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and has thus committed the breach of the provisions of Section 116, Evidence Act and Section 13(1)(f) of the Act and on this ground also the plaintiff if entitled to get a decree of ejectment against the defendant. 7. The date, month and year of sub-letting has not been disclosed in the plaint. The plaintiff's father Nanak Chand PW-2 who actually let out the suit shop has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the suit shop was let out in the year 1971 and the business which was initially started in it is still being carried on in it. The plaintiff Gopi Ram PW-1 admits in his cross-examination dated March 17, 198(sic) that the business under the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store is being carried on since the commencement of the tenancy. On further cross-examination, he disclosed that it is wrong to say that the business in the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store was carried on in the suit shop since commencement of the tenancy. It is thus clear that the plaintiff Gopi Ram has no regard for the truth. It is also well proved from the certificates Ex. A/59 and A/60 that since the year 1970 the business under the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store was started in the suit shop. The Certificate Ex. It is thus clear that the plaintiff Gopi Ram has no regard for the truth. It is also well proved from the certificates Ex. A/59 and A/60 that since the year 1970 the business under the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store was started in the suit shop. The Certificate Ex. A/59 issued under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act shows that Ram Kumar son of Ramjilal is the proprietor of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store. The defendant has filed copies of the entries Ex. A/5 to A/58 of the account-books of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store, Sri Ganganagar relating to the payment of rent of the suit shop since February 2, 1971. The appellate Court ignored these entries on the ground that it is not proved that these account-books were regularly maintained. This is not correct. Ram Kumar D.W. 1 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he used to make entries in his account-books soon after the payment of rent and the original account-books have been brought. The learned appellate Court has observed that such account-books can be prepared at any time. It is not clear on what basis such an observation has been made. Even such suggestion was not put in his cross-examination. 8. It is admitted by Nanak Chand P.W. 2 that the defendant Gopi Ram carries on his cloth business in another shop situated at Gol Bazar, Sri Ganganagar. 9. It has been stated in para No. 1 of the plaint that the rent of the suit shop has been paid upto November 10, 1974. Admittedly, rent receipts Ex. A/1 to A/4 were issued by Nanak Chand P.W. 2. The receipt Ex. A/3 is of one month of January/February, 1971, receipt Ex. A/2 is of August, 1971, receipt Ex. A/4 is of April, 1974 and the Ex. A/1 is of November, 1971. The receipts of the intervening period of over two years must have been issued from the receipt books. The receipts Ex. A/1 to A/4 shows that it contains space for the signature of the tenant. Counterfoils of the receipts have not been produced by the plaintiff to show that they bear the signature of the defendant Ratanlal and not of Ram Kumar as has been said by him. Their non-production casts a serious reflection upon the plaintiff's case and corroborates the entries Ex. Counterfoils of the receipts have not been produced by the plaintiff to show that they bear the signature of the defendant Ratanlal and not of Ram Kumar as has been said by him. Their non-production casts a serious reflection upon the plaintiff's case and corroborates the entries Ex. A/5 to A/58 of the account-books of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store, Sri Ganganagar, owned by Ram Kumar P.W. 1. 10. The defendant Ratanlal has deposed that the suit shop was taken on rent for his 'Samdhi' Ram Kumar and he put his signatures on the rent receipts on the request of the plaintiff's father as the latter was not knowing Ram Kumar D.W. 1. It is correct that the rent note Ex. P/6 was executed by defendant Ratanlal. It does not say that the possession of the suit shop was delivered to Ratanlal. It is the admitted case of the parties that the tenancy in respect of the suit shop was oral. Section 107, Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent can be made by a registered instrument and all other leases of immovable property may be made either by registered instrument or by agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Admittedly, no instrument was executed and registered. It was an oral lease. As such the delivery of possession was necessary for the grant of lease. Neither Nanak Chand P.W. 2 nor Gopi Ram P.W. 1 has disclosed in his statement that the actual and physical possession of the suit shop was delivered to the defendant Ratanlal and not to Ratanlal. Ram Kumar D.W. 1 has deposed that the suit shop was taken on rent by the defendant Ratanlal for his business and he carried on his business under the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store since the beginning. The execution of the rent note Ex. P/6 by the defendant Ratan Lal was only a paper transaction. The rent receipts were issued by the plaintiff in the name of Ratanlal to ensure the payment of rent as actual occupier Ram Kumar was not known to the landlord Nanak Chand and defendant Ratanlal was known to him. The execution of the rent note Ex. P/6 by the defendant Ratan Lal was only a paper transaction. The rent receipts were issued by the plaintiff in the name of Ratanlal to ensure the payment of rent as actual occupier Ram Kumar was not known to the landlord Nanak Chand and defendant Ratanlal was known to him. All these facts and circumstances clearly go to prove that in fact Ram Kumar was the tenant of the suit shop and not the defendant and Ram Kumar. 11. When the defendant Ratanlal was not the tenant and Ram Kumar was the tenant since the beginning, there is no question of sub-letting, parting with possession or assignment by the defendant within the meaning of clause (e) and renouncement of his character as a tenant by him as defined in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. 12. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the defendant Ratan Lal was the tenant and he has sublet it to Ram Kumar. As already observed above, date, month and year of sub-letting have not been pleaded by the plaintiff. It is well proved from the documentary evidence Exs. A/5 to A/60 that Ram Kumar carried on his business under the name and style of M/s. Rajasthan Bearing and Machinery Store since the beginning. Admittedly, rent was taken by the plaintiff till November, 1974 and receipts were regularly issued. It implies that the permission was granted by the plaintiff to Ram Kumar for carrying on the said business. Ejectment can be granted under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act if the plaintiff proves that the tenant has sub-let suit premises without his permission and not otherwise. Similarly, this conduct on the part of the plaintiff implies that he waived his right and condoned the conduct of the defendant Ratan Lal. Thus clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act are not attracted in this case. The question No. 1 is accordingly answered in favour of the defendant-appellant. Question No. 2 13. In view of the aforesaid findings, there arises no question of supporting the decree of ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act under Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. This question is also decided against the plaintiff-respondent. 14. Question No. 2 13. In view of the aforesaid findings, there arises no question of supporting the decree of ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act under Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. This question is also decided against the plaintiff-respondent. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Gangangar dated Sept. 4, 1990 is set aside, the judgment of the learned Munsif Sri Ganganagar dated September 14, 1984 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment is restored.Appeal allowed. *******