JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. A suit for eviction was filed by the landlord respondent against the defendant appellant for eviction on the grounds of subletting, BO/CO/R982/98/RUG-V VG/USA default etc. The case of the defendant tenant was that a Shivji Temple was situated outside Chandpole Gate where Smt. Jadav Devi was the Pujari. There was a Khalsa land on which Smt. Jadav Devi allowed the defendant tenant to put his cabin. Rent of Rs. 20/- per month was fixed which was later on increased to Rs. 60/-. Satyanarain, who is not a son of Jadav Devi and who used to serve her during her life time, started taking rent after her death. The defendant appellant was paying the rent to Satyanarain and thus it was pleaded that he was not a tenant of the plaintiff respondent. Other pleas were also denied. The trial Court framed relevant issues and held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also held that the defendant appellant had executed the rent note Ex. 1 in which the rent was fixed to Rs. 90/- and Rs. 10/- as electrical expenses. It was also found by the trial Court that the tenant appellant had sublet the property and that he had committed default. Consequently, the suit was decreed. On appeal the decree was confirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the rent note was not submitted with the plaint as required under Order 7 of Civil Procedure Code and that there was difference between pleading and proof because the plaint mentioned that the property was let out at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month but the evidence led by the landlord is otherwise. Therefore, he has prayed that the substantial question of law does arise in this case as the suit has been decreed on the basis of rent note which is illegal and inadmissible and that there is another substantial question whether the rent note could be allowed to be taken on record after the suit was filed. 4. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on AIR 1996 SC 112 , Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (dead) by LRs. and others v. Harun Abdul Inamdar and others , in which it was observed that no amount or proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of claim of a litigant party. 4. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on AIR 1996 SC 112 , Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (dead) by LRs. and others v. Harun Abdul Inamdar and others , 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, Allam 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 and the parties are bound by pleadings. 5. In 1986 WLN (UC) 450, M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Bhilwara v. M/s. Rajasthan Textiles Industries, Madan Ganj and another, cited by counsel for the respondent 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 and proved it. When the document itself has been proved and the case of defendant from the beginning was that he was not the tenant of plaintiff, it hardly matters as to what was the stage when rent note was produced. 6. The rent note of course was submitted along with the list in which it was mentioned that the same may be kept under a sealed cover, its photostat copy was also submitted. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff did not mention in the plaint that a rent note was executed by the defendant. When the document itself was produced the plaintiff was not required to plead evidence in plaint particularly when the defendant's case is of denial of tenancy. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff did not mention in the plaint that a rent note was executed by the defendant. When the document itself was produced the plaintiff was not required to plead evidence in plaint particularly when the defendant's case is of denial of tenancy. 7. The rent note mentions that the property was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- including Rs. 10/- as electrical charges. So when the rent note is proved by the plaintiff landlord before the trial Court it cannot be said that there was a difference in pleading and proof. 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. In this case of Delhi High Court 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 to the facts of present case because under issue No. 3 the question to be decided was whether the defendant had sublet half of the portion to the Thekedar Jugal and half of it to one Mohandas and these allegations were found proved on the basis of evidence. 9. There are concurrent findings of facts and reappraisal of evidence cannot be done in the second appeal. 10. In my view there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******