JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J.—The plaintiff having lost in both the courts below is in second appeal before this Court. Parties here-in-after in this judgment shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant. 2. The plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration on the ground that he is a tenant in respect of flat No. 254 in Cecil Annexe, Shimla and the orders passed against one Mrs. K.R. Erry or Mr. I.K. Erry in respect of the flat are illegal and not binding on him. He claims himself to be the grand-son of Mrs. K.R. Erry who is alleged to be a tenant at one point of time. It was on her asking that the defendant had agreed to induct the plaintiff as tenant in the said flat at Rs. 250/- p.m. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been wrongly issuing rent receipts in the name of Mrs. K.R. Erry till her death. Plaintiff thus claims that Mrs. K.R. Erry had nothing to do with the flat and the entry to that extent is a mere formality. 3. Strangely, the plaintiff further states that in case it is found that he was not inducted as a tenant, he should be treated as a tenant by way of adverse possession. This possession, according to him, is open and hostile to the knowledge of the defendant. 4. Admittedly, the defendant had filed a suit for the recovery of rent against Mr. I.K. Erry who inherited the tenancy rights of the flat. According to the plaintiff, Mr. I.K. Erry too had no business with the premises in dispute. 5. While laying contest to the suit, the defendant has come up with the plea that Mrs. K.R. Erry had been inducted as a licensee only for 11 months and on her death, her son Mr. I.K. Erry unauthorisedly occupied the premises. He did not pay anything for the use and occupation of the premises and the plaintiff is alleged to have entered possession unauthorisedly. 6. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plea of adverse possession has been found to be incorrect and it has also been held that the plaintiff is not the tenant of the premises in question. 7. 6. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plea of adverse possession has been found to be incorrect and it has also been held that the plaintiff is not the tenant of the premises in question. 7. Appeal filed by the plaintiff stands dimissed and this is how the plaintiff is in second appeal. 8. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff contends that there is convincing evidence placed by the plaintiff on record that he is in possession of the flat in question since January, 1972 and he was inducted as a tenant on payment of Rs. 250/- per month. It is also being argued that Mrs. K.R. Erry had nothing to do with the flat in question bearing No. 254 Cecil Hotel, Shimla and she being his maternal grandmother, was occupying another flat bearing No. 45 where she died in the year1983. 9. According to the learned Counsel, though the rent was being paid by the plaintiff, yet the receipts that were being issued by the defendant were in the name of Mrs. Erry and this was on account of some mistake some-where. The plaintiff having come to know of it agitated with the defendant that he be reflected as a tenant in the record and a similar request was also made by Mrs. Erry. Things did not improve. 10. My attention has also been brought to several documents placed on record to show that the plaintiff is in possession ever since 1972. Reference usefully be made to be receipts Ext. PW-1/A to Ext.PW-1/D, electricity installation and charges Ext. PW-1/E and Ext. PW-1/F, correspondence which the plaintiff has been receiving as Ext. PW-1/G, Ext. PW-1/H. Copies of the Pass Ports of the plaintiff and his wife have also been placed on record as Mark-E and Mark-F, letters and notices such as Ext. PW-1/K, Ext. PW-1/1, Ext. PW-1/M and Ext. PW-1/N and Postal receipts have also been referred to. Certificate of registration of marriage of the plaintiff and his wife has been placed as Ext. PW-1/Q. 11. All what is being argued on the basis of the above said evidence is that the plaintiff has been giving his Postal and residential address as Flat No. 254. PW-1/M and Ext. PW-1/N and Postal receipts have also been referred to. Certificate of registration of marriage of the plaintiff and his wife has been placed as Ext. PW-1/Q. 11. All what is being argued on the basis of the above said evidence is that the plaintiff has been giving his Postal and residential address as Flat No. 254. The defendant knew it fully well that it is the plaintiff who is in occupation of the flat exclusively and was residing there along with his family and if his possession as a tenant was not accepted by the defendant, he would be deemed to have acquired the rights of tenancy by prescription. In further support of this argument, reliance is being placed on the language of issue No. 2 and further reliance is being placed on AIR 1969 Orissa 184, Mani Charan Swain v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1951 Orissa 235, Bholanath Panigrahi v. Shyamsundra Bose and others, and AIR 1982 AP 24, Satyapramoda Thirthaswamulavaru v. Mula Gunnayya and others. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, in reply, has adopted the same line of reasoning given by the Courts below in the impugned judgments. Learned Counsel further contends that there was no arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant. He was neither inducted as a tenant nor as a licensee. The licensee of this premises was Mrs. Erry and the plaintiff came to occupy the flat in a clandestine manner and thereafter started claiming tenancy rights. Mr. Kuthiala thus proceeds to submit that the evidence on record has been correctly appreciated by the Courts below and no interference is called for in second appeal by this Court. 13. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the impugned judgments and the record as well as the case law cited by the plaintiff at the Bar, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. 14. It may be noticed that the plaintiff in his plaint has averred that Mrs. Erry was his maternal grand-mother and was a tenant of flat No. 45 where she remained as a tenant and died in 1983. She had no concern what-so-ever with flat No. 254. 14. It may be noticed that the plaintiff in his plaint has averred that Mrs. Erry was his maternal grand-mother and was a tenant of flat No. 45 where she remained as a tenant and died in 1983. She had no concern what-so-ever with flat No. 254. As she had good relations with the management of the defendant, a request was made by her to the defendant for one flat to be leased out to the plaintiff and he was, thus, inducted as a tenant and was given possession of the same. 15. It is next said that due to some over-sight, the defendant entered the name of Mrs. Erry as tenant of this flat whereas the plaintiff continues to be in its possession and has been paying rent till February, 1982 where after the defendant has refused to accept the rent from him. 16. In para 3, it is said by the plaintiff that the defendant has been issuing receipts to the plaintiff in the name of Mrs. Erry though she had nothing to do with the flat in question nor she ever occupied it as a tenant or in any other capacity. It is also said that the plaintiff ever since the creation of the tenancy has been repeatedly requesting the defendant to correct its records and issue receipts in his name but without any fruitful result. 17. It is para 4 that deserves to be carefully noticed. It is said by the plaintiff that though he is a tenatn inducted in the premises by the defendant, in the alternative, if it is found that he was not inducted as a tenant, in that event the defendant by its conduct, deed, omissions and commission has accepted him to be the tenant and possession of the plaintiff being open and continuous for more than twelve years and being hostile to the knowledge of the defendant, has matured to the status of tenancy. 18. It, thus, follows that the plaintiff initially claimed the status of a tenant having been inducted in the flat in question by the defendant and in para 4 of the plaint he has come out with the plea that in case he is not held to be a tenant, he should be deemed to have become tenant by prescription. It is possibly this plea that came to be framed as issue No. 1-A. 19. It is possibly this plea that came to be framed as issue No. 1-A. 19. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find that the plea cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the rent receipts Exts.PW-1/A to PW-1/D are in the name of Mrs. Erry in respect of the flat in question. No piece of evidence has been brought on record to show that ever sine the plaintiff came to occupy the flat as alleged by him in January, 1972 he ever raised any protest till 1979 that Mrs. Errys name is being wrongly written in the rent receipts or in the record of the defendant and the same be corrected. 20. It is not denied that Mrs. Erry was occupying Flat No. 45 as well as Flat No. 254, that is one in question, as a licensee as per records of the defendant. The dispute appears to have come on the surface in the year 1979 when Mrs. Erry had written a letter to Mrs. Oberoi (Ext. PW-1/K, dated 3rd July, 1979) saying that a separate flat for her grandson was obtained by her. The grand-son was in America and wanted to return to India. According to her, it was due to over-sight that the flat was put in her name. A request was consequently made that the rights in the flat be transferred in the name of her grand-son and the mistake be corrected. No reply to this notice has been placed on record by the plaintiff. It appears that the request was declined. 21. In this connection reference may be made to another letter Ext. PW-1/1 dated July 8, 1981 which the plaintiff had written to the defendant that the rent receipts are being issued wrongly in the name of Mrs. Erry and the flat be shown in his name. 22. Ext. PW-1/M is the notice dated July 27,1980 given by the defendant through Counsel asking Mrs. Erry to pay the arrears of licence fee failing which suitable action would follow. No reply to this notice has been placed on record and instead a letter Ext. PW-1/N dated August 5, 1980 is on record which was written by the plaintiff to the Counsel of the defendant. In this letter it is said that Mrs. Erry to pay the arrears of licence fee failing which suitable action would follow. No reply to this notice has been placed on record and instead a letter Ext. PW-1/N dated August 5, 1980 is on record which was written by the plaintiff to the Counsel of the defendant. In this letter it is said that Mrs. Erry does not owe any rent of Flat No. 254 for the reason that she is not the tenant of that flat and in fact the plaintiff is the tenant and shall feel happy on receipt of appropriate notice in the matter in respect of the arrears of rent. 23. After having noticed the pleadings and the evidence, reference to which has been made above, I have no doubt in my mind that the defendant at any point of time was inducted as a tenant by the defendant. The plaintiff is not even accepted to be the licensee as the licence of the flat was in the name of Mrs. Erry. In case the plaintiff took over the possession of this flat, it would be for and on behalf of Mrs. Erry and the defendant has no concern with it. 24. Simply because the plaintiff was giving his residential address on this flat or was receiving correspondence, would not entitle him to claim the status of a tenant or a licensee unless some agreement had been brought on record entered into between him and the defendant. Not only this, no other piece of evidence has been brought to my notice whereby it could be inferred that the defendant by its act and conduct accepted the plaintiff to be its tenant or licensee. 25. The plaintiff, in the given situation, cannot be held to have acquired the status of a tenant by prescription. Neither any particulars of adverse possession have been pleaded nor any proof has been supplied. According to the plaintiff, he entered or was inducted as a tenant by the defendant which plea has been found to be false and in case the plaintiff wanted to claim tenancy by prescription, a case had to be pleaded and proved as to at what point of time his possession became adverse and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner. 26. The case law cited is of no help to the plaintiff. 26. The case law cited is of no help to the plaintiff. In AIR 1969 Orissa 184 (supra), the provisions of Orissa Tenancy Act were being examined and in that situation suit filed for declaration that the plaintiff had acquired title of occupancy tenant by prescription, was the question that was gone into. The plaintiff was found to be in possession from 1940 to 1956 and having been in possession for twelve years, he was found entitled to claim the title of occupancy tenant and it was permissible for him to raise the plea of adverse possession. 27. AIR 1951 Orissa 235 (supra) deals with the possession of a transferee for over twelve years without landlords exercising his right of re-entry. It was in that situation held that transferee acquired tenancy by adverse possession. 28. The third case, i.e. AIR 1982 AP 24 (supra) is not applicable to the present case. The question was of the party who had taken possession as permanent lessee under an invalid lease and continued to be in possession for over a statutory period and in that situation, it was found that he had acquired rights as a perpetual lessee by adverse possession. 29. In my view, both the Courts below have examined this question correctly on the basis of the material placed on record by the parties. Learned Counsel has not been able to persuade me to take a different view of the matter than the one arrived at concurrently by both the Courts below which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and sound reasoning. 30. It may also be noticed that the plaintiff in his cross-examination has made an important admission. After about ten lines from where the cross-examination starts, he has stated, "Mrs. Erry was licensee in respect of Flat No. 254". This has been underlined in red-pencil. Once the plaintiff has himself accepted that Mrs. Erry was a licensee of Flat No. 254, it does not lie in his mouth to come up with the plea that he was inducted as a tenant by the defendant and Mrs. Erry had no concern with this flat at all. The arguments, thus, raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff loose their significance in the light of this admission which has been noticed by both the Courts below in the impugned judgments. 31. The defendant has been quite clear in its approach. Erry had no concern with this flat at all. The arguments, thus, raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff loose their significance in the light of this admission which has been noticed by both the Courts below in the impugned judgments. 31. The defendant has been quite clear in its approach. At no point of time the defendant accepted the plaintiff to be either a licensee or a tenant. The moment a letter to this effect was received from Mrs. Erry and then from the plaintiff, the defendant stopped accepting the rent and, admittedly, the plaintiff has not paid any thing since then. The plaintiff, thus, fully well knew that in the rent receipts it is the name of Mrs. Erry that is being mentioned and he accepted this position for eight long years till he and Mrs. Erry became wiser by issuing letters to the defendant. By no stretch of imagination the plaintiff can be held either to be a tenant or a licensee or to have acquired the status of tenant by prescription. 32. No other point has been pressed. 33. In view of what has been said above, the appeal, being wholly devoid of merit, is ordered to be dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed