JUDGMENT (Kuldip Chand Sood, J.)- This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Una, dated September 17, 1993. 2. Plaintiff/appel Jam s filed a suit before learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, for injunction seeking to restrain the defendant/respondent Shri Karatara, from interferring in their possession over the land comprised in khasra Number 63/21/1 situate in village Takka of Tehsil and District Una measuring 5 kanals as per jamabandi for the year 1980-81. Plaintiffs, in the alternative, prayed for a decree of possession in case defendant dispossesses the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. 3. The case of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is: Plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land in dispute and the defendant, without any right, title or interest, is threatening to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs. The defendant resists the suit. Allegations are controverted. It is pleaded that father of defendant Gosain was the tenant of the suit land. The disputed land was earlier comprised in Khasra No. 1624 and 1626. These Khasra Nos. were changed to khasra numbers R-63/2101 (disputed land), R-64/2503 and R-68/101. The entire land is in actual cultivating possession of the defendant. However, the plaintiffs, in connivance with the consolidation authorities got the entries changed in the revenue record to show the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land. It is the case of the defendant that Shri Gosain, father of the defendant and one Labhu, were in cultivating possession of the entire land comprised in khasra number 1624 and 1626. In the year 1926-27, Labhu left the cultivation and Gosain continued to cultivate the land till his death. The suit land, after having been allotted new khasra Numbers, continued to be in possession of Gosain. However, in kharif 1969, the column of cultivation was wrongly and illegally changed, without notice to the defendant. It is the further case of the defendant that khasra number R-64/2503 was also carved out from khasra numbers 1624 and 1626 but this khasra number was shown in the revenue record, after consolidation, in the possession of the defendant and he was vested with the ownership rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Tenancy Act for short). It is the case of the defendant that though defendant was not shown to be in possession of the remaining land, in the revenue record, but he has become the owner of the entire land under the Tenancy Act. 4. Plaintiffs filed replication and pleaded that Gosain was a tenant at will under the plaintiffs. He died in the year 1958-59 and thereafter, plaintiffs took possession of the entire land but at that time consolidation authorities, after verifying the factual position, chanted the revenue entries. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that tenancy at will was not heritable by the defendant. 5. Learned trial Court settled the following issues for determination : 1. Whether the defendant is a tenant over the suit land and-has become owner by operation of law? OPD 2. Relief. 6. Learned trial Court held that defendant is tenant over the disputed land and had become its owner by operation of law and accordingly proceeded to dismiss the suit. 7. Dis-satisfied, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned District Judge who vide his impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. This appeal was admitted on December 6, 1994 on the questions of law as formulated by the plaintiffs/appellants. 9. I have heard Mr. Sanjee v Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Rama Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is found that following substantial question of law arises for consideration: Whether in view of the order of the Assistant Collector dated 11.2.1956 placed on the file of First Appellate Court as Ext. C.A., the relationship of landlord and tenant between the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and father of defendant Gosain came to end. 10. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge, an application for additional evidence was allowed. PI ainf i i uappellants produced copies of the revenue record and copy of the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Una Ext. C.A. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that change in possession of the disputed land has correctly been reflected in the revenue record in view of the orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Ext. C.A.). C.A. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that change in possession of the disputed land has correctly been reflected in the revenue record in view of the orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Ext. C.A.). Shri Kuthiala urges that ejectment orders were passed by the Assistant Collector on 11.2.1956 against Gosain, father of the present respondent. Thus, the tenancy of Gosain over the disputed land came to send on the passing of these orders and thereafter, he ceased to be tenant. In consequence, the entries in the revenue record showing the plaintiff/appellants in self-cultivation of the disputed land cannot be said be illegal. In fact, they carry presumption of truth. 11. So far the change in the revenue entries is concerned learned First Appellate Court has noticed that change was made unauthorisedly without notice to Gosain or defendant Kartara. Learned District Judge has referred to proceedings of the operations (Ext. Al) and has observed that no notice was served to Kartara or Gosain and, therefore, the change made was unauthorised and illegal. This apart, the First Appellate court noticed the overwhelming documentary evidence which shows that Gosain was in possession of the disputed land till his death as tenant. I have gone through the revenue record. Exhibit D2, copy of Misal Hakiat for the year 1913-14 shows Gosain in possession of khasra number 1964 and 1626 alongwith one Labhu as non-occupancy tenant. Exhibit D3, jamabandi for the year 1926-27 shows only Gosain as tenant of the disputed land. Ext. RC. jamabandi for the year 1946-47, Ext. R.D. jamabandi for the year 1950-51, Ext. P4 jamabandi for the year 1955-56, Ext. Re jamabandi for the year 1975-76, Ext. RF khasra girdawari from kharif 1947 to Rabi 1951 and Ext. RG khasra-girdawari from kharif 1956 to Rabi 1962 show the continuous possession of Gosain as tenant over the disputed land. It is the admitted position that Gosain died on 7.1.1959 but his name continued to be reflected in the column of cultivation. However in khasra-girdawari for Rabi 1959 change in cultivation is shown in favour of defendant change in cultivation is shown in favour of defendant Kartara. The change was recorded in the daily diary of April 6, 1959 (Ext. RA). 12. However in khasra-girdawari for Rabi 1959 change in cultivation is shown in favour of defendant change in cultivation is shown in favour of defendant Kartara. The change was recorded in the daily diary of April 6, 1959 (Ext. RA). 12. For some unknown reasons, during consolidation proceedings, when khasra numbers were changed from original khasra numbers to the present khasra numbers and new khasra numbers R-63/2101, R-64/2503 and R-68/101 were created. Kartara was recorded in possession of only one khasra number measuring 2K and subsequently recorded as owner of this Khasra number. 13. Learned First Appellate Court has observed that there is no explanation as to how the khasra numbers which were given to Kartara in lieu of khasra numbers 1624 and 1626 were recorded in self cultivating possession of the plaintiffs/appellants. Both the courts below found that Kartara, defendant/respondent continued to be in possession of the disputed land as tenant after the death of his father. This concurrent findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, are supported by the evidence, discussed above. The findings cannot be said to be the result of misreading of evidence. . 14. So far the determination of the tenancy of Gosain by the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade is concerned, perusal on the order (Ext. CA) shows that it is a conditional order. The bare reading of the order makes it clear that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had filed proceedings for recovery of the rent of rupees 300/- in respect of the disputed land. The Assistant Collector directed the tenant Gosain to pay the rent within two months failing which he would be liable to be evicted. However, such eviction was not to take place unless he is allotted appropriate land from the surplus land. The order is dated February 25, 1956. Apparent as it is, the order of Assistant Collector is not order of eviction of the defendant-respondent. It in fact, is an order for the payment of rent due to the landlord and it is only in case Gosain failed to pay such rent within two months that he would be liable to be evicted. There is nothing on the record to show that rent was not paid by the defendant as stipulated in the orders. It in fact, is an order for the payment of rent due to the landlord and it is only in case Gosain failed to pay such rent within two months that he would be liable to be evicted. There is nothing on the record to show that rent was not paid by the defendant as stipulated in the orders. As already noticed, this is not even the case of the plaintiffs as set up either in the plaint or in the replication. The case of the plaintiffs in the replication is clear that after the death of Gosain, plaintiffs took over the possession of the suit land which has been found to be factually incorrect by both the courts below. The order of the Assistant Collector was introduced for the first time before the First Appellate Court as additional evidence. 15. As noticed by the learned District Judge, plaintiff Dev Raj, appearing as PW1, categorically admitted that Gosain continued to be in possession of the entire land measuring 11 Kanals 14 Marias as tenant on payment of batai PW2 admits in his cross-examination that defendant Karatar is in possession of the disputed land after the death of his father Gosain since settlement. He further admits that Gosain was never evicted from the disputed land and defendant Karatar is the only heir of Gosain. He also admits that Kartara is in possession of the property after the death of Gosain. As noticed earlier, the plaintiff/appellants have not led any evidence to show that the rent due per orders of the Assistant Collector (Ext. C.A.) was not paid by Gosain and he was evicted. The admission of the plaintiff Dev Raj proves that notwithstanding the orders of the Collector (Ext. C.A.), Gosain continued to be tenant on payment of rent. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellant refers to the judgment of this Court in Sohan Lai & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors., C.W.P. No. 224 of 1998 decided on November 30, 1998 and contents that the moment Assistant Collector passed conditional eviction order, the relationship of landlord and tenant came to end. The fact that Gosain was not actually dispossessed will not revive the relationship of landlord and tenant and the possession of the defendant would be deemed to be permissive. The fact that Gosain was not actually dispossessed will not revive the relationship of landlord and tenant and the possession of the defendant would be deemed to be permissive. In Sohan Lais case (supra), a writ petition was filed by the petitioners for question of the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra in Appeal No. 346/83 and for declaration that the petitioners have acquired proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The case of the petitioner was that Assistant Collector passed orders on 14.2.1966 directing the ejectment of the petitioners. This was a conditional order and was not implemented. The order of the Assistant Collector in that case was in the following terms: "......In view of the my findings on the above mentioned issues I order the ejectment of the respondent from the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 26.75 as compensation. Actual ejectment shall however take place only after the respondent is resettled on some surplus area." The respondent raised a contention that as order of ejectment of the petitioner was lawfully passed by the competent authority which has become final, therefore, the petitioners or their predecessor-in1- interest, cannot claim the status of tenant within the meaning of H.P. Tenancy and Reforms Act and are not entitled to the benefit of section 104 of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of eviction was a conditional order and as the predecessor-in- interest continued to be in possession, therefore, the petitioner would be deemed to be the tenants. It is in this context that the Division Bench of this court held that relationship of landlord and tenant came to end on the passing of the order of eviction in the ejectment proceedings by the landlord and the mere fact the actual dispossession by the landlord for a future date till the tenant was settled on some alternate land by the Government would not entitle such person to claim tenancy. The possession of such a person would be deemed to be permissive in view of the condition imposed by the Assistant Collector (emphasis supplied). 17. The facts in the present case are distinguishable inasmuch as actual decree of ejectment was never passed against Gosain, predecessor-in- interest of the defendant. The possession of such a person would be deemed to be permissive in view of the condition imposed by the Assistant Collector (emphasis supplied). 17. The facts in the present case are distinguishable inasmuch as actual decree of ejectment was never passed against Gosain, predecessor-in- interest of the defendant. The order was only to the effect the in case the arrears of rent are not paid within the stipulated period of two months, Gosain would be liable to be evicted from the suit land. This cannot be said to be a decree or order of ejectment of Gosain. The ratio in Sohan Lais case is of no assistance to the plaintiff/appellants. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also referred to Devi Ram & Ors. v. Chet Ram & Ors., 1995(2) Siml.L.C. 222. This case is also distinguis-able on facts. In that case, petitioner was non-occupancy tenant under one Chet Ram on payment of l/3rd produce as rent. The landlord obtained a decree for the recovery of arrears of rent for six crops amounting to rupees 1037.58 paise. The decree remained un- satisfied inasmuch as the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent. The landlord, therefore filed an application for execution of the decree under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act. The tenant/petitioners filed objections which were rejected. The orders of ejectment were up-held up to the level of Financial Commissioner. Consequently, the petitioners were dispossessed by the landlord through revenue authority. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this court. It is in this context that the Division Bench of this court held that though Punjab Tenancy Act, under which conditional orders were passed by the Assistant Collector was repealed by the Tenancy Act but the orders passed under the Punjab Tenancy Act were specifically saved by the saving clause of the Tenancy Act and if a person has acquired any right under the repealed law, that right continues, if there is a saving clause in the new Statute, unless such right is contrary to the Scheme of the new law. It was also held that as the decree obtained by the landlord against the tenant was not satisfied, therefore, the tenants were liable to be ejected under the provisions of the new Act. 19. In the present case, no application for the execution of orders of the Assistant Collector was filed by the landlords. It was also held that as the decree obtained by the landlord against the tenant was not satisfied, therefore, the tenants were liable to be ejected under the provisions of the new Act. 19. In the present case, no application for the execution of orders of the Assistant Collector was filed by the landlords. In fact, as noticed earlier, there is no evidence to show that order of the Assistant Collector for the payment of rent due remained unsatisfied. 20. This apart, plaintiff/appellants cannot be permitted to set up a case which was not pleaded before the trial Court. It is not the case of the plaintiffs either in the plaint or in the replication that pursuant to the orders of the Assistant Collector (Ext. C.A.), Gosain was ever evicted. The pleadings were not amended to include this plea even at the stage of first appeal. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellants cannot be permitted to raise a plea which has no foundation in the pleadings. 21. Answer to the question: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/appellants and Gosain, father of the tenant, did not come to end on the passing of the orders Ext. CA. 22. No other point is urged before me. 23. In result, appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed