JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The plaintiff landlord filed suit for eviction of a shop on the grounds of subletting and default. The defendant-appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and also denied other averments. The trial Court framed necessary issues and decreed the suit. The decree was confirmed by the learned appellate Judge, hence this second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no pleading in the plaint that the rent note was executed and that there was difference in pleading and proof. 4. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on AIR 1996 SC 112 , Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (dead) by LRs. v. Harun Abdul Inamdar. , in which it was observed that no amount or proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of claim of a litigant party. Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported In 1973 RLW 378, Kusumchand v. Kanhaiyalal. , wherein it was observed that when there was variation between the pleading and proof the suit cannot be decreed. Reliance was also placed on AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 291, AIIam Gangadhara Rao v. Gollapalli Gangarao. , in which it was observed that the party can only succeed according to what is alleged and proved. No relief can be granted on facts and documents not disclosed in plaint. Reliance has also been placed on AIR 1998 Calcutta 288, Jaya Sen v. Sujit Kr. Sarkar , wherein it has been observed that the parties are bound by their pleadings. There is no doubt that it is settled law that there should not be a difference of pleading and proof. 5. But in the case in hand when the rent note was produced, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted much so when the case of the defendant is that he was not the tenant of plaintiff. 6. In 1986 WLN (UC) 450, M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Bhilwara v. M/s. Rajasthan Textiles Industries, Madan Ganj. , it was observed that the plaintiff has a right to file document along with rejoinder to case set up by defendant and no leave of Court is required. The plaintiff did produce the rent note. Of course it was not pleaded in the plaint that the rent note was executed. , it was observed that the plaintiff has a right to file document along with rejoinder to case set up by defendant and no leave of Court is required. The plaintiff did produce the rent note. Of course it was not pleaded in the plaint that the rent note was executed. Evidence is not required to be pleaded in plaint. 7. In this case the defendant has not pleaded that he was a tenant of some one else. There are concurrent findings of facts against the appellant. The evidence cannot be re appreciated in second appeal. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that the possession of the suit property has been taken by the plaintiff landlord in the execution of decree. This is not relevant at present. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of AIR 1984 Delhi 114, Chander Kishore Sharma v. Smt. Kampa Wati , that of course second appeal lies only when there is a substantial question of law involved. But when the case in the Delhi High Court was such where father and son were living in a portion, the question of subletting by one to the other was considered to be substantial question of law. This citation does not apply in the present case. The persons to whom the shop is proved to have been let out are not relations of the defendant. 9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same is hereby dismisfiled. No orders as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******