Judgment Prakash Tatial. J,-Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the mortgaged house with the allegation that the suit property was mortgaged with Defendant No. 1 by Defendant No. 2 on 03.06.1967 for a consideration of Rs. 600/-. The mortgage was for four years. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff purchased the property in question from Defendants No.2 and 3, who were the owners of the property according to the plaintiff and because of the reason that the plaintiff paid Rs. 600/-to Defendant No. 2, therefore, he also got the right to redeem the property. The plaintiff served notice upon Defendant No. 1 but Defendant No.1 did not deliver the property to the plaintiff . Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for redemption of the mortgaged property. 2. In view of the plea taken by Defendant No. 1 the plaintiff amended the plaint and pleaded that if the Defendant No. 1 is found to be tenant in the property in dispute and the mortgage is not proved then the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the possession on the basis of the title. It will be worthwhile to mention here that even in the amended plaint, the plaintiff did not plead any fact about the rent, which the plaintiff or plaintiff’s predecessor received from Defendant No. 1. Not only this, the plaintiff even did not claim any rent from Defendant No. 1. Neither there was any pleading nor the Court fees was paid nor the relief was sought by the plaintiff for the arrears of rent. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff , holding that the suit property was mortgaged and the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 8-A, held that Defendant No. 1 was tenant in the suit house on rent of Rs. 5/-per month. Since, the trial Court deceased the suit on the basis of the mortgage, the trial Court did not decree the suit on the basis of title. The trial Court also did not grant any decree for arrears of rent in favour of the plaintiff . 4. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27.05.1977 was challenged by the Defendant by preferring appeal. The trial Court also did not grant any decree for arrears of rent in favour of the plaintiff . 4. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27.05.1977 was challenged by the Defendant by preferring appeal. The first appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and held that the plaintiff failed to prove the fact that the property was mortgaged with Defendant No. 1. The first appellate Court also reversed the finding of the trial Court in issue No. 8-A and held that Defendant No. 1 is not the tenant in the house. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal of the Defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by Judgment and decree dated 12.09.1980. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff , who died during pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives are in the appeal. 5. The only substantial question of law framed by this Court on 25.02.1981 is that “whether the first appellate Court was right in refusing to decree the suit for arrears of rent on the basis of rent note Exhibit-3?” 6. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the first appellate Court committed serious illegality in not decreeing the suit for arrears of rent because the appellant proved the rent deed Exhibit-3 and by this deed, it is proved that Defendant No. 1 was the tenant in the house in question. It is also submitted that in a case for redemption of mortgaged property, the decree for arrears for rent can be passed in a case where the plaintiff fails to prove the mortgage. It is also submitted that the decree for arrears of rent is a lesser relief than the relief claimed by the plaintiff , therefore, this relief could have been granted even if it was not prayed for. 7. I considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record also. It appears that the first appellate Court carefully considered the evidence of the parties and observed that Defendant No. 1 was in possession of the house in dispute since 1962. Admittedly, the plaintiff failed to prove by any evidence that the rent was ever paid by the Defendant. It appears that the first appellate Court carefully considered the evidence of the parties and observed that Defendant No. 1 was in possession of the house in dispute since 1962. Admittedly, the plaintiff failed to prove by any evidence that the rent was ever paid by the Defendant. The first appellate Court rightly observed that the trial Court committed mistake in deciding issue No. 8-A in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the reason that Defendant failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Defendant. In addition to it, the plaintiff did not produce title deed so as to claim arrears of rent as transferee from the landlord. Nor he produced any evidence to prove that Defendant No. 1 tenant paid any rent to him or attained the tenancy in plaintiff’s favour. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for decree for rent. 8. Even if the admission of Defendant No. 1 is considered, which is with respect to his being tenant in the house in question, is concerned, the Defendant No. 1 not admitted the plaintiff as his landlord. Apart from it, the plaintiff himself did not plead any fact that how much rent the landlord received and how much amount of the rent was due in Defendant No. 1. No Courts fees was paid by the plaintiff for the arrears of rent and for future rent, therefore, it is not a case of not seeking relief only but it is a case of total lack of pleading and rather say, the plaintiff for the purpose of claiming the arrears of rent, does not disclose any cause of action. Therefore, the first appellate Court has not committed any error of fact or law in not allowing the decree for arrears of rent on the basis of Exhibit-3. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.