M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the civil Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant-defendant for declaration that he is the tenant and praying that the defendant should be ejected from the portion of the suit schedule premises consisting of two rooms. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant preferred appeal before the I additional civil Judge, Mangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 49 of 1994. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. ( 5 ) ( 6 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that his grand father Laxminarayana Bhat took the suit property on lease from Sri venkataramana Temple, Car Street, Mangalore. After the death of the plaintiffs grandfather Laxminarayana Bhat, the father of the plaintiff Ramachandra Bhat continued the tenancy with possession. After the death of Ramachandra Bhat, the plaintiff, being the son of Ramachandra Bhat, continued the tenancy under the landlord Sri Venkataramana Temple. The defendant was given a portion of the suit schedule property (two rooms) on her request, because she was closely related to the plaintiff. ( 7 ) AS I have already stated, the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff alone was the tenant and the defendant was not a tenant and she is not entitled to claim any tenancy right. ( 8 ) I have set out above the pedigree; The plaintiff is the grandson of original tenant Laxminarayan Bhat. The defendant is the granddaughter of Rama Bai. Rama Bai is the daughter of laxminarayana Bhat. ( 9 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that the defendant is a co-tenant. It is further argued that the defendant (granddaughter of laxminarayana Bhat's daughter) has inherited the tenancy rights of Laxminarayana Bhat along with the plaintiff, who is the grandson of Laxminarayana Bhat. ( 10 ) THIS is entirely a new plea taken up in this Court. In the Court below it is not contended that the defendant inherited the tenancy right along with the plaintiff. The contention taken up in the written statement is that Laxminarayana Bhat was not the tenant of the suit property. ( 10 ) THIS is entirely a new plea taken up in this Court. In the Court below it is not contended that the defendant inherited the tenancy right along with the plaintiff. The contention taken up in the written statement is that Laxminarayana Bhat was not the tenant of the suit property. The appellant-defendant has denied that Laxminarayana Bhat was a tenant. She has further denied that after the death of Laxminarayana Bhat, his son Ramachandra Bhat (father of the plaintiff) became the tenant. She has further denied that the plaintiff inherited the tenancy rights. ( 11 ) TO repeat, the stand of the defendant in the lower Court was not that she inherited the tenancy rights along with the plaintiff. She chose to deny the tenancy of the plaintiff, his father and his grandfather. The new plea taken up in this Court cannot be given any weight. Both the Courts below have concurrently held on facts that the plaintiff alone has inherited the tenancy rights. ( 12 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that the Trial Court has not given the declaration that the plaintiff was the tenant and so the eviction of the appellant could not have been ordered. It is true that the trial Court, in the operative portion of the judgment, has not given the declaration. This is an irregularity which does not go to the root of the matter. It is clear from the body of the judgment and the discussion that the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff alone was the tenant. This amounts to holding or declaring that the plaintiff was the tenant. ( 13 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that it is not clear from the plaintiffs case from which portion the defendant has to be ejected. This submission is not correct. It is clear that the defendant has to be ejected from two rooms which are a portion of the suit schedule property. ( 14 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that the issues have not been properly framed. It is too late in the day to contend that the issues are not properly framed. The parties have gone to trial knowing the case of each other. ( 14 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that the issues have not been properly framed. It is too late in the day to contend that the issues are not properly framed. The parties have gone to trial knowing the case of each other. If the issues were not framed correctly, it was open to the appellant-defendant to file an application to recast the issues. ( 15 ) RELYING on as many as 40 rent receipts and other circumstances, both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff alone was the tenant and that he is entitled to possession of the suit schedule portion. ( 16 ) THE conclusions of the Courts below are findings on facts. They are neither perverse nor illegal. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal by this Court. ( 17 ) THE appellant-defendant is a close relative of the respondent-plaintiff. She was about 30 years old on the date of the suit. She has stated that her husband has no house in his native place or in Mangalore. She has got a daughter who is hardly 7 or 8 years old. In view of these circumstances, I am of opinion, if time is granted to the defendant to vacate, the ends of justice will not be defeated. ( 18 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is rejected at the admission stage. The appellant-defendant is granted two years time from today to vacate. --- *** --- .