JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been filed by Surendra Kumar Agrawal against a judgment and decree dated 25-11-1987, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Sriganganagar (Raj.) whereby the suit for possession and mesne profits was decreed against the appellant Surendra Kumar and his father Baburam (respondent No.2). 2. The facts, in brief, are that initially the respondent No.1 (Krishna Talkies, Sriganganagar) filed a suit for possession and damages against Baburam alone. According to the plaint allegations there are three shops situate in the premises of Krishna Talkies, Sriganganagar and the same are used to provide tea etc. and for the period starting from 1-4-79 to 31-3-80, the three shops were given to the said Baburam on contractual basis at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. Out of the three shops included in the contract, two opened inside the campus of the cinema hall and third shop opened outside on the road. According to the plaint allegations the contractual period ended on 31-3-80 and the defendant Baburam was to surrender the three shops back to the plaintiff. He handed over the possession of only two shops and failed to hand over the possession of the third shop which opened on the road. In this way according to the plaint allegations the possession of Baburam, after 31-3-80, was that of a trespasser. Further, it was alleged that the shop in question was capable of earning rent approximately at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and consequently, apart from the prayer of possession of the shop further prayer was made that damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, totalling Rs. 1000/- for the period prior to the filing of the suit may also be awarded. 3. The defendant Baburam in his written statement denied that the suit shop was included in the contract which was executed for the period between 1-4-79 to 31-3-80. According to the written statement only two shops were included in the agreement and the possession of both the shops was returned to the plaintiff on 31-3-80. Further, it was mentioned that the suit shop was actually in the tenancy of the appellant Surendra Kumar w.e.f. 10-3-71 and the answering defendant had nothing to do with the suit shop. According to the written statement only two shops were included in the agreement and the possession of both the shops was returned to the plaintiff on 31-3-80. Further, it was mentioned that the suit shop was actually in the tenancy of the appellant Surendra Kumar w.e.f. 10-3-71 and the answering defendant had nothing to do with the suit shop. Further it was stated that Nanakchand was a partner of the plaintiff firm and it was Nanakchand who rented out the suit shop to Surendra Kumar and as a result Surendra Kumar was a tenant in his own right w.e.f. 10-3-71. 4. After filing of this written statement by Baburam the plaint was got amended by the plaintiff and the appellant Surendra Kumar was added as a defendant No.2 in the suit. Surendra Kumar filed his written statement and contended that the suit shop is in his tenancy w.e.f. 10-3-71 and was never given to Baburam. According to the written statement, only two shops, which opened inside the campus of the cinema hall, were given to Baburam who handed ever the possession back on 31-3-80. According to the written statement, initially the shop was tenanted on rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month but subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs. 60/- per month and since then the appellant has been paying the rent at the said rate. It was specifically stated that Nanakchand was a partner of the plaintiff firm who gave the suit shop to the appellant on rent. Further, it was stated that instead of filing a suit on the basis of relationship of land-lord and tenant the plaintiff was trying to bypass the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and hence, this suit for possession has been filed. 5. Necessary issues on the pleadings of the parties were framed. PW-1 Satya Narain Gupta and PW-2 Gopalram Verma were examined by the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 Baburam examined himself and DW-2 TArachand Bhatia, DW-3 Nandlal and DW-4 Rishi Kumar were further examined by him. The defendant No. 2 Surendra Kumar examined himself as DW-5. Further, DW-6 Subhash Chandra and DW-7 Rajendra Prashad were examined by him in support of this contention. The learned Court heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 25.11.87. The defendant No. 2 Surendra Kumar examined himself as DW-5. Further, DW-6 Subhash Chandra and DW-7 Rajendra Prashad were examined by him in support of this contention. The learned Court heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 25.11.87. It was found that the appellant was never a tenant in the suit shop and it was found that three shops, in all, were given to the respondent No. 2 Baburam for the period between 1.4.79 to 31.3.80 and Baburam returned the possession of two shops only and failed to deliver the possession of the suit shop on 31.3.80. Further, it was found that the shop could fetch rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. Consequently, the suit for possession was decreed and the suit was further decreed for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. Feeling aggrieved the defendant No. 2 Surendra Kumar has preferred this appeal. No appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1 Baburam. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have persued the record of the case. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has not cared to read the evidence on record and has decreed the suit in an arbitrary manner. It is contended that the former employees of the plaintiff came and deposed in favour of the appellant but without any good reason their evidence was discarded by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel has submitted that Tarachand Bhatia, who was a former Manager of the plaintiff, has stated that the suit shop was in the tenancy of the appellant and the rent was recovered by the 'Munim' of the plaintiff. DW-3 Nandlal, an Assistant Manager has stated that the two shops, which opened towards the road, were actually in the tenancy of the appellant. Similarly, DW-4 Rishi Kumar, another Manager, has deposed that the suit shop was in the tenancy of Surendra Kumar who used to pay rent to Tarachand Bhatia or to the 'Munim' of the plaintiff. 7. DW-3 Nandlal, an Assistant Manager has stated that the two shops, which opened towards the road, were actually in the tenancy of the appellant. Similarly, DW-4 Rishi Kumar, another Manager, has deposed that the suit shop was in the tenancy of Surendra Kumar who used to pay rent to Tarachand Bhatia or to the 'Munim' of the plaintiff. 7. The learned Counsel has further argued that DW-6 Subhash Chandra, an LDC of Municipal Board, Sriganganagar came with licence Ex.B/1 accoridng to which the licece of the shop stood in the name of Surendra Kumar alone and on its basis it stands proved that the shop was run by Surendra Kumar in his own right. The learned Counsel has further drawn my attention towards the testimony of DW-7 Rejendra Prashad, who allegedly was a booking clerk for the period between 1976 to 1980 and he has proved the rent receipts Ex.B/2 to Ex.B/8 which according to the witness were issued by him to Surendra Kumar towards the rent paid by him. 8. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and I find not merit in this appeal. So far as the alleged license for a tea shop (Ex.B/1) is concerned DW-6 Subhash Chandra has admitted that this certificate Ex.B/1 was never issued by him. Moreover, the date of issue of the certificate is recorded as 5.7.69. Needless to say that this Ex.B/1 does not relate to the suit shop because even according to the appellant this shop was never in his possession prior to 10.3.71. The certificate Ex.B/1 which bears the date 5.7.69, in this way could never have been issued in respect of the suit shop becaused there is no allegation that this shop was in possession of the appellant prior to 10.3.71. In this respect the testimony of EW-3 Nandlal assumes significance. He has stated that there are two shops which open on the road and the appellant Surendra Kumar is a tenant and consequently in possession of both the shops. it, thus, becomes clear that apart from the suit shop there is one more shop and according to Nandlal the appellant is in possession of these two shops which both open on the road. it, thus, becomes clear that apart from the suit shop there is one more shop and according to Nandlal the appellant is in possession of these two shops which both open on the road. One of these two shops is the suit shop and the other may be the shop in respect of which the certificate Ex.B/1 has been produced by the witness DW-6 Subhash Chandra. It is, thus, very clear that the certificate Ex. B/1 does not relate to the suit shop. 9. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant to the effect that the trial court was wrong in not relying upon the alleged rent receipts Ex.B/2 to Ex.B/8 is also not acceptable. No doubt DW-7 Rajendra Prashad has come and stated about the receipts but he simply was a booking clerk and had no authority to issue the receipts or to accept the rent on behalf of the plaintiff. Moreover, these receipts have been tendered in evidence through a back door. It is pertinent to note that the application moved under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to produce these receipts was dismissed by the trial court on 2.7.85 and the revision ( S.B. Civil Revision No. 357/1985, Surendra Kumar v. Krishna Talkies ) filed against the order dated 2.7.85 and 5.10.85 the appellant was left with no right to tender the said receipts in evidence and consequently, they are of no help to the appellant. Moreover, the learned trial Court has found that these receipts are highly suspect and possibly they were created subsequently by the appellant in collusion with DW-7 Rajendra Prashad who possibly was disgruntled ex-employee of the plaintiff. 10. According to the appellant, he is a tenant w.e.f. 10-3-71 continuously. However, the receipts Ex.B/2 to Ex.B/8 pertain to the period between 1-9-78 to May 1980. In other words there is no receipt for the period starting from 10-3- 71 to 1-9-78 nor there is any receipt for the period beyond May, 1980. According to DW-2 Tarachand Bhatia the rent was either Rs. 40/-, Rs. 50/- or Rs. 60/- per month and it was the 'Munim' who used to collect the rent. Admittedly PW-7 Rajendra Prashad was never a Munim of the firm. DW-3 Nandlal in his sworn testimony states that the appellant was given the shops by Tarachand Bhatia on rent. According to DW-2 Tarachand Bhatia the rent was either Rs. 40/-, Rs. 50/- or Rs. 60/- per month and it was the 'Munim' who used to collect the rent. Admittedly PW-7 Rajendra Prashad was never a Munim of the firm. DW-3 Nandlal in his sworn testimony states that the appellant was given the shops by Tarachand Bhatia on rent. Tarachand Bhatia does not say that the shop in question was ever given by him on rent to the appellant. Thereafter, Nandlal makes another somersault and states that in his presence the shop was given to appellant by PW-1 Satya Narain. This is contrary to the allegations made in the written statements filed by the defendants. According to the written statements the appellant got the shop from Nanakchand. According to the DW-4 Rishi Kumar the rent used to be paid either by Tarachand or by the 'Munim'. Tarachand Bhatia does not say that rent was ever collected by him. In his cross-examination he breaks down completely and admits that he actually does not know as to in what capacity the appellant is in possession of the suit shop. 11. The appellant Surendra Kumar has deposed contrary to the averments made in the written statement. According to the written statement it was Nanakchand from whom he got the shop on rent. In his examination-in-chief he comes with a contention that he went to Deharadoon and brought a letter from Nanakchand and on the strength of this letter Satya Narain admitted him as a tenant in the suit shop. This deposition, apart from being contrary to the averments made in the written statement, is a clear cut afterthought and no such suggestion was made to Satya Narain when he was in the witness-box. 12. The contention of the appellant as per the written statement is to the effect that the shop was tenanted at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month w.e.f. 10-3-71 and subsequently, the rate of rent was raised to Rs. 60/- per month. Strangely enough the appellant is not able to tell as to from which year the rent was enhanced nor it is disclosed as to with whom he negotiated the enhanced rent. 13. According to the plaintiff three shop including the suit shop were given to respondent No.2 Baburam for the period between 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 and the document Ex.1 in this respect was executed by Baburam. 13. According to the plaintiff three shop including the suit shop were given to respondent No.2 Baburam for the period between 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 and the document Ex.1 in this respect was executed by Baburam. Baburam has admitted that Ex.1 bears his signatures. In the written statement also the execution of Ex.1 is not disputed. In these circumstances, there is no reason to dispute the contents of Ex.1 wherein it is specifically stated that three shops including the suit shop were given to Baburam vide Ex.1. Baburam during his deposition tried to say that many a times he was made to sign on blank papers. However, he does not say specifically that his admitted signatures on Ex.1 were obtained when the paper was blank. Nor any such suggestions were made to PW-1 Satya Narain when he was in the witness-box. 14. In the light of the contentions raised by the two defendants' Nanakchand was the most important witness who could throw light in respect of the pleas taken by the defendants. Strangely enough Nanakchand was not examined in the case. 15. The learned trial Court has given cogent reasons in support of the conclusions drawn by him and in the light of what has been stated above, I find no material to differ with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court. The appellant Surendra Kumar is the son of Baburam (respondent No.2) and apparently the son and father are in collusion. 16. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******