JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment, therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are that there is a premises known as shop No. I situated at Jalori Gate and is alleged to be part of Amar Nath Building. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the shop No. 1, described by its neighbourhood in paragraph 1 of the plaint, was rented out to Chhanwar Lal. He used to pay Rs. 36/- rent per month. After a family settlement in between the plaintiff Shambhu Nath, his brothers and their father on 1.4.1972, this property was assigned to Shambhu Nath, who in turn, sold it to Pramila Joshi, by a registered sale-deed dated 17.6.1983. She received the symbolic possession at the time of sale. In the plaint it is alleged that defendant No. I Chhanwar Lal has been committing default in payment of rent and has also sub-let the property to defendant No. 2 Prakash Mal and has also made material alterations. It is alleged in the suit that notice dated 6.5.1974 and 2.7.1975 were given and ultimately the tenancy was terminated with effect from 3.8.1975. 3. Both the defendants contested the suit. Defendant No. I stated that he was not the tenant of shop No. 1. He was the tenant of the father of the plaintiff Shambhu Nath but the premises was not the one as described in the plaint. The premises with him was as described in para I of the written- statement. On 4.10.1972 after paying all the rent he had handed over the vacant possession to Amar Nath. He is not aware whether the property came to the share of Shambhu Nath or not. Since he had handed over the possession to Amar Nath he is not liable to pay any rent. 4. Defendant No. 2, who was subsequently added as defendant, has averred that the defendant No. 1 was a tenant in different premises which he vacated 20 years earlier. There had been no division of the property of Amar Nath. He claimed that he is the owner of the property in his possession and Shambhu Nath had no right to sell it. The property is not covered by the title-deed of Amar Nath. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, various issues were struck. There had been no division of the property of Amar Nath. He claimed that he is the owner of the property in his possession and Shambhu Nath had no right to sell it. The property is not covered by the title-deed of Amar Nath. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, various issues were struck. For the purposes of these appeals the decision of issues No. 1, 3 and 7 B are relevant. Issues No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 would not be relevant as they were not agitated and, therefore, they are not required to be touched and as regards the issue No. 4 both the Courts below have currently found against the plaintiff and he has not agitated against it. 6. Issue No. 2 related to the default in payment of rent by Chhanwar Lai. He has taken the stand that he vacated the premises on 4.10.1972. He has not paid rent thereafter. Rent was determined on 17.12.1979. No rent was paid. Consequently, defence was struck off on 19.1.1982. Prakash Mal has never considered himself to be a tenant. Finding on this issue, was, therefore, not challenged by him. Thus, the finding on this issues was not challenged by any one. 7. Defendant No. 2 has assailed the findings of the Courts below on issues No. 1, 3 and 7B. The case of the defendant No. 2 appellant Prakash Mal is that the property which is in his possession was not the property let out to Chhanwar Lal. The plaintiff has not produced his patta and unless the plaintiff proves by the best evidence in his possession cannot be stated that the property in question is the property owned by Amar Nath and assigned to Shambhu Nath who subsequently sold it to Smt. Pramila Joshi. When the title of the property does not vest in Amar Nath then it cannot be said that the property was owned by Amar Nath. If Amar Nath had not owned it then he could not assign the property to Shambhu Nath and Shambhu could not have sold it. ' 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Prakash Mal has urged that the Courts below had erred in not drawing an adverse inference against the plaintiff for non-production of the best evidence which was in possession of the plaintiff. ' 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Prakash Mal has urged that the Courts below had erred in not drawing an adverse inference against the plaintiff for non-production of the best evidence which was in possession of the plaintiff. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latif & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1413 and has urged that when a party in possession of the best evidence which thrown light on the controversy withholds it the Court ought to draw adverse inference against that party notwithstanding the onus of proof and, therefore, in this back-ground it has been urged on behalf of appellant Prakash Mal that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are the owners of the premises in question, and, therefore, they cannot be held entitled to ask for possession of the property over which he is in possession after his father. His father was in possession of the property since long. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Prakash Mal has further stressed that the Courts below have used different yardsticks in assessing the evidence while deciding issue No. I and issue No. 7B. Different yard sticks have been used by the Courts below in deciding these issues and, therefore, the judgments are vitiated. 10. It has also been urged that the evidence of Prakash Mal has not been considered in the right perspective. Prakash Mal has said that in the disputed property his father was doing business. He used to lend drama articles on loan. Thereafter he has taken over and is doing stationary and printing business. He has produced certain documents showing his address of Jalori Gate. Curiously in his evidence he has not been able to spell out as to when and in what capacity his father or he entered into the disputed premises. He has produced 'few witnesses signifying that he has been in occupation of the property from many years. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that a document executed in between Chhanwar Lal and plaintiff No. I Shambhu Nath cannot establish the identity of the property. By merely saying shop No. 1 the disputed property does not become the property which was leased out to Chhanwar Lal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that a document executed in between Chhanwar Lal and plaintiff No. I Shambhu Nath cannot establish the identity of the property. By merely saying shop No. 1 the disputed property does not become the property which was leased out to Chhanwar Lal. He has further alleged that if the plaintiff and Chhanwar Lal connived and made a document of tenancy of the property in which the defendant No. 2 appellant Prakash Mal is in possession then can he be divested of his property on the basis of the receipt executed in between them ? Thus, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are not based on sound legal principles and are vitiated. 12. In Chhanwar Lal's appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Chhanwar Lal has urged that he has handed over the possession to Amar Nath on 3.10.1972. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any arrears of rent as he has handed over the vacant possession and he had already paid the rent upto 3.10.1972. 13. Counsel for the respondent, Caveator has urged that the case of the appellant is a case of deception. According to Chhanwar Lal he had handed over over the possession of the property on 3.10.1972. This fact is contradicted by a written document signed by Chhanwar Lal himself. Ex. 1 is the receipt of rent from 4.4.1972 to 3.10.1972 in respect of shop No. 1. This receipt was signed by Shambhu Nath and Chhanwar Lal on 7.6.1973. If Chhanwar Lal on 7.6.1973 has signed this receipt acknowledging the payment of rent from 4.4.1972 to 3.10.1972 then what is established is that until 7.6.1973 he was tenant of the premises covered by that receipt. If this inference is drawn then the case set up by Chhanwar Lal that he had handed over vacant possession of the property on 3.10.1972 to Amar Nath falls to ground. 14. Not only the above fact has been wrongly put forward by the defendant Chhanwar Lal but there is a long chain of wrong averments made by him in his written-statement, which he had failed to establish by evidence. For instance, in the written-statement, he has denied to have received the notices sent to him but in cross-examination he has admitted that he received the notices Ex. 3, 6 and 9 sent to him, by the plaintiffs. For instance, in the written-statement, he has denied to have received the notices sent to him but in cross-examination he has admitted that he received the notices Ex. 3, 6 and 9 sent to him, by the plaintiffs. He has, in his written-statement, given a description about the property which he was in possession. In his written-statement he said that the premises which was in his possession had in its west some other property of Amar Nath. He had not told anything about, west to his Advocate, but in the west Prakash Mal has a property and in the back, Ram Swaroop is the tenant. Thus, it is established that Ram Swaroop being tenant in Shop No. IA the defendant is tenant of Shop No. 1. 15. He accepts that in Ex. 1 it is written that this receipt relates to Shop No. 1 and this has been correctly described. Thus, he has been shifting his stands. Another example of his shifting stands is that he has stated in his written- statement that the property had not been assigned by Amar Nath to Shambhu Nath but then he admits his signatures on Ex. PW 2/1 information of this transfer. He further admits that thereafter he started paying rent to Shambhu Nath. Thus, he attorned in favour of Shambhu Nath yet contended that he had handed over possession to Amar Nath, that cannot be believed. 16. Learned counsel for the defendant has further urged that he has accepted his signatures on Ex. I and Ex. 5 receipts. His admission is the best proof this that he was tenant of Shop No. 1. His stand that he gave possession to Amar Nath on 3.10.1972 also cannot be believed in the face of Ex. 2 which was signed by defendant No. I Chhanwar Lal on 7.6.1973. How he signed the rent receipt on 7.6.1973 when he handed over the possession on 3.10.1972. 17. He has also lied about the date of starting of his tenancy. According to the written-statement the tenancy was from the first day of every month whereas when he was confronted with the receipt he accepted that his tenancy started from 4th of every month and ended on 3rd of the next month. 17. He has also lied about the date of starting of his tenancy. According to the written-statement the tenancy was from the first day of every month whereas when he was confronted with the receipt he accepted that his tenancy started from 4th of every month and ended on 3rd of the next month. He has also not given any explanation as to why after having been described as a tenant of Shop No. I he did not reply to any of the notices sent to him in the shape of Ex. 3, 6 and 9. In cross-examination this witness has accepted that he had never objected to his being described as tenant of Shop No. 1. 18. He has admitted in his cross-examination that in receipt No. 1 he has been shown to be the tenant of Shop No. I which is "Pa" to "kha". Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was established beyond doubt by documentary evidence that Chhanwar Lai was the tenant of Shop No. I until 7.6.1973. He acknowledged by signing Ex. I that he was the tenant of Shop No. 1, subsequent thereto he stopped paying the rent and in 1974 he inducted Prakash Mal as sub-tenant of the premises. 19. Prakash Mal is a tenant of an adjacent property. Taking advantage thereof he connived with Chhanwar Lai and has entered into the property with his connivance. While deciding issue No. 7B the Court has rightly described Ex. D-1, Ex. D-2, Ex. D-3 and Ex. D-4 to he the documents of no consequence. None of these documents establish that Prakash Mal had anything to do with Shop No. I owned by the plaintiffs. The burden of proof of Issue No. 7B was on the defendant No. 2 but he has not been able to establish that the property in question was of his ownership. He has not been able to show as to how and when he has come into possession of the property as claimed by him. Once the defendant 2 fails to establish that how he has come into possession of the property in question, then obviously the case of the plaintiffs stands proved. He has not been able to show as to how and when he has come into possession of the property as claimed by him. Once the defendant 2 fails to establish that how he has come into possession of the property in question, then obviously the case of the plaintiffs stands proved. By documentary evidence the plaintiff has been able to establish that the property belonged to the plaintiffs, was on rent with Chhanwar Lal, he has been paying rent to the plaintiffs Shambhu Nath and until 7.6.1973 he had accepted that he was the tenant of Shop No. 1. When all this is proved then what necessarily follow is that the status of Prakash Mal is that of a sub-tenant. 20. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The foremost question in this case is the identity of the property. 21. The plaintiff in the plaint has described the property by the below given boundaries: 1- nqdku dk eqag if'pe esa gSA 2- nqdku ds iqBs esa oknh dks [kqyh tehu oks jkLrk gSA 3- nqdku esa isLrk thouh rjQ nqdku la[;k ,d@, oknh dh gSA 4- nqdku esa isLrk Mkoh rjQ oknh dk DokVj ua0 37 gSA 22. The plaintiff has in his evidence proved the same. The situation of the shop was established by the plaintiff in map annexed to sale-deed Ex. 2. 23. The defendant No. I Chhanwar Lal in his written- statement given the following description of the property : (a) dejs dk njoktk mRrj esa o vkxs vejukFk th dh [kqyh tehu o DokVj (b) dejs ds nf{k.k esa vejukFk th dk DokVj FkkA dqN le; iwoZ DokVj o dejs esa jnnksa cnyh dVok dj cM+h nqdku cuk nh xbZ gSA (c) dejs ds iwoZ esa Jh vejukFk th dh vU; tk;nkn (d) dejs ds if'pe esa Jh vejukFk th dh vU; tk;nknA 24. In the evidence of DW I Chhanwar Lal it has come clearly : esjs jgus okys edku dk eqWag mRrj esa Fkk o ihB nf{k.k esa FkhA mRrj esa vkxs pkSd FkkA pkSd ds vkxs nqdku gSA ml oDr esjs ihNs okys iMkSlh fdjk;snkj jkeLo:i Fkk mlds ckgj nqdku Fkh tks vkt Hkh gSA 25. In the evidence of DW I Chhanwar Lal it has come clearly : esjs jgus okys edku dk eqWag mRrj esa Fkk o ihB nf{k.k esa FkhA mRrj esa vkxs pkSd FkkA pkSd ds vkxs nqdku gSA ml oDr esjs ihNs okys iMkSlh fdjk;snkj jkeLo:i Fkk mlds ckgj nqdku Fkh tks vkt Hkh gSA 25. Appellant Prakash Mal in his evidence has stated that - ;g lgh gS fd ml njokts ls izos'k djs rks nkfgus gkFk dks rjQ lSds.M gS.M cqd dEiuh gS tks jkeLo:i lgh dh gSA " oknxzLr fgLls esa ?kqlrs gh tho.kh rjQ jkeLo:i dh lsds.M gS.M cqd fMiks nqdku gSA "" izn'kZ 2 Iyku uD'ks esa " d " LFkku ij izdk'k czn'kZ dh nqdku gSA ;g eq>s irk ugh gS fd izn'kZ 2 ds layXu uD'ks esa yky jax ls crk;k fgLlk bl eqdnesa esa fookn xzLr gS ;k ughaA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd izn'kZ 2 esa lyXau uD'ks esa d 1 LFkku ij Vh0ch0 vLirky vk;k gqvk gS vkSj ;g Hkh lgh gS fd d 2 LFkku ij jkeLo:i dh lSds.M gS.M cqd dh nqdku gSA "" fooknxzLr ifjlj ftldk njoktk 'kfu'pj th ds Fkku dh rjQ [kqyrk gS og ikl okys ifjlj ftldk njoktk Vh0ch0 vLirky dh rjQ [kqyrk gS nksuksa izdk'k czn'kZ ds gS o nksuksa njokts ds vksx gh ,d cM+h pcwrjh gSA "" Vh0ch0 vLirky ds lkeus [kqyus okys njokts dh nqdku dk ekfyd es gWqaA ftlesa izdk'k czn'kZ O;kikj djrk gS mldk ekfyd gwaA " 26. This can be seen from the evidence of the appellant Prakash Mal that he is the adjacent neighbour of the disputed premises. But when he is confronted with map annexed to Ex. 2 he denies his knowledge that red marked portion is disputed premises. He has also categorically admitted that Ramswaroop is the other adjacent neighbour of the disputed property. If the disputed shop is identified with the help of the map annexed to Ex. 2 then in its north is shop No. IA possessed by Ramswaroop, in its south is quarter No. 37, front of the premises is in west and in the back there is an open space. If this description is read with the evidence of Prakash Mal then it will be clear that the disputed property has its face towards Sanischarji Than i.e. west. South is the shop of Ramswaroop. If this description is read with the evidence of Prakash Mal then it will be clear that the disputed property has its face towards Sanischarji Than i.e. west. South is the shop of Ramswaroop. Adjacent to the shop facing T.B. Hospital is the premises of Prakash's brother. The door of Prakash's brother disputed property open on one Chabutari. 27. The above boundaries are when referred with the evidence of Chhanwar Lal than he admits that Prakashji was his neighbour and so is Ramswaroopji. If margin is given to his shifting stands, as demonstrated by the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff then there remains no doubt that the disputed property was the property in which Chhanwar Lal was tenant. Curiously appellant Prakash Mal in his cross-examination as quoted above has pleaded ignorance about the existence of red marked portion in the map annexed to Ex. 2 but then in other part of the examination he has admitted that disputed property is situated between Prakash Brothers and second hand book shop owned by Ramswaroop. 28. It can be seen from the reading of evidence of Prakash Mal and Chhanwar Lal that there had been a concerted effort on the part of both the appellants to disguise the identity of the disputed property. 29. In the face of the documentary proof of the tenancy of Chhanwar Lal of Shop No. 1, there should not be any doubt that he was the tenant of Shop No. 1. In having signed Ex. 1 and Ex. 5 he admitted his status of being a tenant of Shop No. 1. His inaction in not replying to the notice Ex. 3, 6 and 9 also establish the same fact. 30. Chhanwar Lai has not been able to prove that he was tenant of any other part of the property of Shambhu Nath then the one which had Ramswaroop as its adjacent neighbour and Prakash Mal as its other neighbour. If the map annexed to Ex. 2 is read in this light then there remains no manner of doubt that it was the disputed property which was with Chhanwar Lal, as tenant. 31. Another significant fact of the case of the appellant is that Ex. 2 was produced much early in the trial. No effort was made by the appellants to identify the property in which Chhanwar Lal was a tenant. 31. Another significant fact of the case of the appellant is that Ex. 2 was produced much early in the trial. No effort was made by the appellants to identify the property in which Chhanwar Lal was a tenant. In the map identity of Shop No. 1 was clearly stated. Chhanwar Lal had not stated that it is not this property which was in his occupation as tenant. Prakash Mal has evaded the answer. In doing so both the appellants have missed a chance to establish the identity of the other premises which they claim was with Chhanwar Lal ass tenant. 32. Another aspect of the case is also very significant. Appellant Prakash Mal was required to discharge the burden of proving issue No. 7B. There is no wispier in his case as to how he or his father came in possession of the property. No documentary evidence showing the identity of the shop in question was produced by Prakash Mal. The documents produced by him as Ex. D.1 to Ex. D. 5 only show that at Jalori Gate, there is a firm transacting business as Prakash Brothers. But then, he also admitted that in 1956 he took shop on rent in Amba Das Building where he is transacting business in the name and style of Prakash Brothers. These documents will relate to this premises. Therefore, issue No. 7B was decided against the appellant Prakash Mal. 33. When Prakash Mal has failed to establish his title over the disputed property, then non-production of the title deed by the plaintiff cannot be blown out of proportion. It was after all a rent suit. No title was required to be established by the plaintiff. 34. Both the Courts below have found as a fact that Chhanwar Lal was tenant of Shop No. 1. By the discussion of the evidence hereinabove I also find that the finding of the Courts below was based on evidence and material on record. 35. Chhanwar Lal, claiming to have vacated the premises in 1972, has signed the receipt Ex. 1 upto 1973. This shows that after this he connived with appellant Prakash Mal. Courts below have also found the same. I see no reason to take a different view. To prove subtenancy of Prakash Mal evidence of both the appellants is sufficient. Chhanwar Lal says that he abandoned the possession. 1 upto 1973. This shows that after this he connived with appellant Prakash Mal. Courts below have also found the same. I see no reason to take a different view. To prove subtenancy of Prakash Mal evidence of both the appellants is sufficient. Chhanwar Lal says that he abandoned the possession. His claim that he gave possession to Amar Nath in 1972 is false as he was then paying rent to Shambhu Nath and was required to give possession to him. He has not even claimed that he gave possession to Shambhu Nath. In this back-ground when Prakash Mal claims exclusive possession of the disputed premises than parting with possession by Chhanwar Lal is established. Both the Courts have found this as a fact. I also concur with these findings. 36. Chhanwar Lal has been held to be a defaulter. The finding of issue No. 2 has not been challenged. Defence was already struck off. 37. Having concurred with the finding of the Courts below on facts and evidence I do not think that there is any substantial question of law involved in the appeals to warrant interference. 38. In the result, there is no force in the appeals and the same are dismissed at the admission stage. The appellants will pay costs throughout.Second appeal dismissed. *******