Judgment Narayan Chandra Sil, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1989 passed by Shri P.N. Bhadury, learned Assistant District Judge, Sixth Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in connection with Title Appeal No. 330 of 1987 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1987 passed by Shri N. Sarkar, learned Munsif, Fourth Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in connection with Title Suit No. 360 of 1978. 2. The suit before the trial court was for eviction of the licensee on revocation of licence. The trial court decreed the suit and the lower appellate court affirmed the same. 3. The plaint case in brief is that the defendant No.2 is the sister of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 is the husband of the defendant No.2. Both the defendants came from erstwhile East Pakistan in 1952 during communal disturbance and started living in refugee camp. The plaintiff, on being requested by the defendants provided them two rooms with a kitchen under the occupation of the plaintiff without any consideration of money or rent. Thereafter, the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 brought the defendant No.3, a widow sister of the plaintiff who had also come from erstwhile East Pakistan on migration and had been living in a refugee camp at Howrah. In 1964 two tenanted rooms and kitchen were vacated by the tenant of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 asked the plaintiffs for permission to occupy those two rooms also for the purpose of convenience of the education of the children and accordingly those two rooms were also given to the defendants without any consideration. Subsequently, the defendants were allotted lands at Baghajatin Colony, Jadavpur, and although the defendants erected their own building at Agarpara, they did not vacate the suit premises. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit and denied all the material allegations and it was, inter alia, stated by them that they are the monthly tenants at rental of Rs.40/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.100/- per month. 4. For the purpose of hearing of this appeal the following substantial question of law is formulated: "What is the status of the defendants-licensees or tenants and whether the judgments of the lower court are erroneous and perverse in not drawing adverse presumption for non-production of the counterfoils of rent receipts and in not considering the evidence and documents placed before them." 5. Mr. Mr. Sudhis Dasgupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants submits before me that the plaintiff is the thika tenant and during the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff died and his widow and other heirs were substituted. It is the specific case of Mr. Dasgupta that the defendants are the tenants and not licensees. He has also drawn my attention to Ext. ‘A’ and Ext. All in the names of the defendant No.1 and the erstwhile tenant respectively. It is also pointed out by him that Exhibit 'B' series are the electric bills and telephone bills. He has also taken me through the affidavit at page 49 of L.C.R. particularly to its paragraph 4. He has then pointed out to the evidence of the P.W.1 and the plaint case at paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is argued by him that non-consideration of the evidence on record is a question of law. Mr. Dasgupta has referred to the ratio decided in the case of Hiralal & Ors. vs. Badkulal & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 225 . In the said case the suit was for recovery of amount due on the basis of adjustment of accounts signed by defendant. Defendant denied the correctness of amount found due. I was held that the defendant who is in possession of account books kept by him and from which the balance could be ascertained should produce them before the court. It was further held that the defendant cannot be heard to say, relying upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof, that it was no part of his duty to produce them unless he was called upon to do so. 6. Mr. Soumen Dasgupta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits before me that the defendants never stated in the written statement that the plaintiff took away the rent receipts. In this regard, the learned Advocate for the respondents has drawn my attention to the evidence of the P.W.2 who is related to both the parties. It is also pointed out by him that the counterfoils of the rent receipts which was talked about by the P.W.1 in her evidence and which found mentioned in the affidavit on discovery is all about the counterfoils of the rent receipts issued to the other tenants. Mr. Dasgupta appearing for the respondents then submits before me that the D.Ws. It is also pointed out by him that the counterfoils of the rent receipts which was talked about by the P.W.1 in her evidence and which found mentioned in the affidavit on discovery is all about the counterfoils of the rent receipts issued to the other tenants. Mr. Dasgupta appearing for the respondents then submits before me that the D.Ws. 1 and 2 were cross-examined on Exhibit 'A'. He has then referred to the ratio decided in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., 1999 (3) SCC 722 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the scope of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said case the appellant was the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance in relation to an agreement for sale of the suit lands. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, however, decreed the suit and granted the relief prayed for on the basis of clear finding that the deceased S had executed the sale document which had been duly witnessed. B, the witness in whose presence S had affixed his thumb impression proved the document at the trial and also stated that such was S's usual mode of executing documents. The High Court allowed the second appeal after reappreciating the evidence. As regards the testimony of R, a witness who was present at the execution of the agreement, the High Court observed that R had not been mentioned in the plaint. The High Court also pointed out certain discrepancies in the testimony of another witness. In the said case the High Court did not formulate a question of law and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in that case that if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be regarded as suffering from an error either of law or procedure requiring interference in second appeal. 7. The original plaintiff appears to have sworn an affidavit filed in connection with a petition under Order 11 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is specifically stated there in paragraph 3 that he had never had any possession or custody of any document/paper/letter/writing in connection with the suit in question except the documents mentioned in the schedule. The schedule of the said affidavit reads as under: 1. Selami Receipt. 2. Letter written by Bijoy Banerjee to the District Engineer. 3. Sanction Drainage Plan. 4. Rent Receipts. 5. Corporation Tax Receipts. 6. Electric Bills. 7. Rent Counter Foil Book. 8. Death Certificate. 9. Certified copy of Assessment Register. The learned Advocate for the appellants has pointed out to item No.7 mentioned above and tries to impress upon me that the item No.7 relates to the counterfoils of the rent receipts issued to the defendants. I may recall here that the learned Advocate for the respondents submits in this connection that those counterfoils of the rent receipts were al about the rent receipts issued to the other tenant. 8. Smt. Uma Rani Dutta, the widow of the original plaintiff is the P.W.1. She stated in her examination-in-chief that her husband issued only one rent receipt in favour of the defendant No.1 on the ground that he will get house rent from his office. It is also in her evidence that the defendant No.1 was an railway employee. The P.W.1 also stated that her husband all along paid the ground rents so long he was alive and some of the rent receipts are lying with her and some of the rent receipts are lying with the defendant No.1 as for want of time her husband gave the money to the defendant No.1 for payment of the ground rents. It my be mentioned here that it is not the case of the defence that they paid the ground rents on which the suit premises is situate. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendants that they are the tenants. 9. The P.W. 2 is one Shib Das Dutta. He is the younger brother of the original plaintiff and so the defendant No.1 is his brother-in-law and the defendant No.2 is his sister. He has supported the case of the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief. He, of course, admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present when the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 came to occupy the suit premises but this does not ipso facto demolish his evidence-in-chief where he had supported the case of the plaintiff. He has supported the case of the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief. He, of course, admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present when the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 came to occupy the suit premises but this does not ipso facto demolish his evidence-in-chief where he had supported the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, there is no independent witness to support the case of the defendants and thus, the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.1 have examined themselves as D. W. 1 and D.W. 2 respectively in the instant case. 10. Exhibit 'A' is the vortex of the case which appears to have been issued in the name of Shri Gouranga Behari Bose, the defendant No. 1. It appears from the said exhibit that it was issued on 15.3.1969 and the amount of rent was shown as Rs.100/-. There is no other rent receipt which could be produced by the defendants in order to substantiate their case that they are the tenants in respect of the suit premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The explanation of the defendants that the plaintiffs took away the rent receipts from the defendants for filing the same before the High Court in connection with a case. The defendants could not give any specific information in respect of which case those rent receipts were taken away by the plaintiff from them nor could they prove the said explanation before the trial court. There appears again nothing in the written statement filed by the defendants that the plaintiff took away the rent receipts on the pretext of filing the same in a case pending before the High Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have been living in the suit premises at the first instance in two rooms since 1952 and thereafter in other two rooms left by a tenant, whereas the defendants have claimed that they are in occupation of the suit premises since 1950. But to my utter dismay the defendants failed to produce any rent receipts except the purported one i.e. the Exhibit 'A'. In the absence of the averment in the written statement as regards the very vital fact, as claimed by the defendants, that all the rent receipts were taken away by the plaintiffs on the plea as stated above. But to my utter dismay the defendants failed to produce any rent receipts except the purported one i.e. the Exhibit 'A'. In the absence of the averment in the written statement as regards the very vital fact, as claimed by the defendants, that all the rent receipts were taken away by the plaintiffs on the plea as stated above. I am unable to accept the plea of the defence in this regard and am in absolute agreement with the courts below that the defence has miserably failed to substantiate its case. This has also prompted me to accept the case of the plaintiffs that solitary and lone rent receipts was issued on the request of the defendants to enable him drawing some benefit from his office. 11. The ratio decided in the case of Hiralal (supra) as referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant does not appear to have any application in the instant case, for, it differs materially form the facts of the instant case. In the said case there was unqualified acknowledgement contained in the entry of the statement of accounts. But in the instant case except the lone rent receipt (Ext. 'A') the defendants could not produce any other rent receipts and the explanation for such non-production of the rent receipts has not been accepted. In this connection, I may hark back to the schedule to the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff in connection with the documents on discovery, and to hold that the argument put forward by the learned Advocate for the respondent appears to be acceptable so far the item No.7 of the schedule is concerned that the same relates to the counterfoils of the rent receipts issued to the other tenant. 12. In view of what has been discussed in the foregoing lines the appeal is dismissed on contest. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are hereby affirmed. The suit is decreed. 13. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. 14. A copy of this judgment alone with the L.C.R. be sent down to the lower courts forthwith. Appeal dismissed.