ORAL JUDGMENT :- A suit for eviction instituted in 1983 was by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane on 15th December, 1993. The was upheld in appeal by the Joint District Judge, Thane on 31st July, 1998, petition was admitted 1st September, 1998. The petition now comes up ring . 2. The respondent instituted a suit for eviction on 14th September, 1983. The material averment in support of the case of the respondent was that he as a of a piece of land situated at Ward No. 11, Chandan wadi, Thane, had d a structure, including a room, admeasuring 150 sq.ft. there on. The al defendant approached him in April, 1981 and sought permission to y a room temporarily since the premises which he was to obtain were to about a year for being ready for occupation. The respondent accordingly d permission to the original defendant to occupy the room on a monthly compensation of Rs. 40/-. The respondent averred that the parties never to create a tenancy. Though the defendant occupied the premises in he remained in arrears of the compensation/rent payable, right inception. A notice dated 27th January, 1983 was issued to the defend upon him to quit and vacate the premises and to pay the arrears of r was an averment in the plaint that it was apprehended that the defence claim tenancy rights and hence, the plaintiff-respondent treated him a and addressed a notice on that basis. A decree for possession was a sought. 3. In the Written Statement filed by the original defendant, the a in the plaint were denied. According to the defendant, he had obtained of land admeasuring 15 x 10 on lease from the respondent in Februa constructing a structure thereon for the purposes of his residence on rent of Rs. 40/-. The contention of the defendant was that he had in 1981 constructed a permanent structure thereon by expending an am . 17,000/- towards the cost of construction. At the time of the execute lease, the defendant claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 6,000/security deposit. The original defendant to the suit denied the exist relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent in the suit premises. Consequently, it was averred that it was not original plaintiff to claim any rent for the structure. 4. At the time of the execute lease, the defendant claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 6,000/security deposit. The original defendant to the suit denied the exist relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent in the suit premises. Consequently, it was averred that it was not original plaintiff to claim any rent for the structure. 4. The plaint was amended to claim eviction additionally on that the petitioner had denied the title of the respondent to the suit . that he claimed a title in himself. It was averred that there was a breach conditions of the tenancy. An additional Written Statement came to the original defendant stating that it was his case that he was a ten respondent only in respect of the open plot and not in respect of the suit. which consisted of a room. Then it was also averred as follows: "This dispute regarding as to whether the defendant is the respect of the open plot or the suit premises i.e. the room, amount to denial of the title of the plaintiff." 5. Parties adduced evidence before the Trial Judge. The trial Cou the suit holding that (i) The original defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff; (ii) Despite the receipt of a demand which was sent by register the receipt whereof was acknowledged, the defendant had failed arrears of rent between May, 1981 and July, 1982; (iii) The defendant during his cross-examination that he had no documentary evidence to he was the owner of the suit premises or that he had expended any money purposes of the construction; and (iv) A decree for eviction was liable passed on the ground of arrears and on the ground that the defendant h the title of the landlord. The trial Judge, it may be noted, also entered. that the status of the original defendant was that of a protected ten section 15A of the Rent Act. As noted earlier, the decree for eviction came to be passed on the ground of arrears and on the ground that there was a denial by the tenant of the landlord. 6. An appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial Court defendant. As noted earlier, the decree for eviction came to be passed on the ground of arrears and on the ground that there was a denial by the tenant of the landlord. 6. An appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial Court defendant. The respondent filed a cross objection in the appeal for challenging Trial Judge to the extent that the trial Court had held that the required the status of a protected tenant under section 15A of the petitioner moved an application before the Appellate Court for ional evidence. In part 2 of the application, the petitioner suit was originally for possession on the ground of arrears. The ht to set up a case that he had remitted the rent by Money Orders fused by the respondent. It was submitted that the Money Order coupons remained to be produced through oversight. In sum and substance, contention of the petitioner was that though the suit for possession ground of arrears of rent, the petitioner was not in arrears since the remitted to the landlord. 7. The Joint District Judge, Thane, dismissed the appeal by his Judgment and Order 31st July, 1998. At the very threshold, in the reasons which were the Appellate Court, it has been noted that it was true that the petitioners, has made out a case to the effect that he was in the occupation premises in the capacity of a tenant. The District Judge noted that apart petitioner claimed to have sent the rent with respect to the suit the landlord, The Appellate Court, however, entered a finding that Order coupons produced by the petitioner appear to be fabricated. Money Order coupons bore an endorsement of refusal, the t itself bore no signature of the postman from whom the landlord accept Money Orders in question. Moreover, there was no cogent explanation forthcoming on the part of the petitioner as to why those documents produced at the trial of the suit. That being the position, the order of as affirmed. 8. Both the plaintiff and the defendant expired during the pendency of the procedings. Their legal heirs have been brought on record. 9. Moreover, there was no cogent explanation forthcoming on the part of the petitioner as to why those documents produced at the trial of the suit. That being the position, the order of as affirmed. 8. Both the plaintiff and the defendant expired during the pendency of the procedings. Their legal heirs have been brought on record. 9. On behalf of the tenant, it has been submitted that (i) The Appellate had abdicated its duty to consider the evidence on record and to evaluate the findings of fact of the Trial Court; (ii) The contention of the landlord was that was a licensee and, the plea of tenancy which was urged without, to the contention that only a licence had been created could not be sustained since both those pleas were mutually destructive; (iii) Once it is held respondent has accepted the petitioner as his licencee, the rent Court has no to entertain and try the suit; (iv) The trial Court erred in holding , petitioner was a deemed tenant under section 15A of the Rent Act ch as the licence was created only in May, 1981; and (v) That there was ial of title on the part of the petitioner. 10. In considering these submissions, it must be noted at the outset that the original came before the Court with the plea that the original defendant was inducted into the premises temporarily on a monthly compensation of Rs. 40/the premises which the defendant had agreed to obtain elsewhere were not for occupation. The plaint proceeded on the basis that the parties did not intend to create a tenancy in respect of the room and the initial induction was on leave and licence basis. Nonetheless the landlord stated that he accepted the occupant as a tenant and sought a decree for eviction on the ground that the t had remained in arrears of rent right since the inception. The defendant set up a case that he held a leasehold interest in the land and that the month Rs. 40/- that was agreed as compensation was the ground rent for the t contention of the defendant was that he had expended an amount of Rs. for construction of superstructure and that he was the owner superstructure. In view of this defence, the landlord amended the plain an additional ground of eviction, namely, the denial of title by the defendant the landlord. for construction of superstructure and that he was the owner superstructure. In view of this defence, the landlord amended the plain an additional ground of eviction, namely, the denial of title by the defendant the landlord. In the additional Written Statement that the petitioner denied having controvertered the title of the landlord and on the con material to note that he averred that the dispute related to whether tenant in respect of an open plot or of the room. This dispute, accord petitioner, did not amount to a denial of title. In the course of examination, however, the defendant made the following categorical ad. "I have no any documentary evidence to show that I am own premises. There is no documentary evidence to show that I land on ground rent. For the purpose of construction I had cement, bricks and other building materials but I have not fill about purchase of building materials on record." In the face of these clear admissions, the Trial Judge was justified in the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish his defence that leasehold interest confined to the land and that he was the own superstructure. Now, when the matter was carried in appeal before the Judge, the petitioner sought to adduce additional evidence in supp application. For doing so, it was averred that the suit for eviction as instituted was only on the ground of arrears of rent. The petitioner conf in fact, he was not in arrears of rent as claimed in the notice; that he h the rent by Money Orders which were refused by the landlord and that Order Coupons remained to be produced at the trial through over District Judge, in the course of his judgment made the following observation regard to the case set up by the petitioner before him: "It is true that the appellant-defendant has made out a case to that he is in occupation of the suit premises in the capacity a Not only this, but he had sent rent with respect to the suit pre landlord-respondent. " This observation is reflective of the position which the petitioner ado the District Court in appeal. " This observation is reflective of the position which the petitioner ado the District Court in appeal. That is also borne out by the fact that the sought to produce additional evidence in the appeal in support of his that he was not in arrears of rent by virtue of the alleged remittance through Money Orders which according to the tenant, had been refuse no ground in the Writ Petition to the effect that the recording by Judge of the case of the petitioner in para 8 of the judgment is incorrect being the position, it is clearly impermissible now for the petitioner t the maintainability of the suit on the ground that he is not a tenant in the premises. First and foremost, as already noted above, the petitioner a specific case that he held a leasehold interest in the land on a movement rent of Rs. 40/- while the superstructure thereon was constructed by hi of his ownership. The petitioner failed to establish the case that he was of the superstructure on the basis of any cogent documentary evidence. The defence was therefore, correctly rejected by the Trial Judge, Secondly, as the , e petitioner in para 3 of the additional Written statement would petitioner correctly understood the parameters of the dispute : the whether the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the open plot of land ,of establish or of the suit premises consisting of the superstructure thereon. Thirdly, even before the District Judge, in appeal, the case was understood to be that a ground for eviction has been made out at the tenant was a defaulter in paying the arrears of rent. In fact, sought to produce additional evidence on the footing that the had been remitted, In these circumstances, it is impossible to submission of the petitioner that the suit must fail for want of Of a landlord and tenant. The plaint may not be artistically worded, of the case of the landlord is clear. The contention of the landlord was respondent was initially inducted, for a temporary period. The defendant ate or to pay the arrears due and payable. The landlord accepted the tenant and on that basis filed the suit for eviction on the ground that ,arrears in the payment of rent. The contention of the landlord was respondent was initially inducted, for a temporary period. The defendant ate or to pay the arrears due and payable. The landlord accepted the tenant and on that basis filed the suit for eviction on the ground that ,arrears in the payment of rent. Parties went to trial clearly on notice for eviction was sought on the basis that the petitioner being a in default in the payment of rent and had denied the title of the premises. 11 Insofar as the submission that the District Judge has not evaluated the case is concerned, there is absolutely no merit therein. Before the age, the petitioner sought to justify his defence on the ground that the dispatched by Money order. The District Judge was, in my view, entirely justified in holding that there was no cogent explanation offered for the Money Order coupons had not seen the light of the day during the trial. These were in the custody of the defendant all along and to "they remained to be produced through oversight was clearly not. That apart, the District Judge entered a finding of fact that the alleged not of refusal thereon bore no signature of the Postman. The inference money Order coupons were not genuine was, therefore, an inference validly drawn by the District Judge on the basis of the surrounding circumstances including the conduct of the petitioner. Once the defence that the en paid is unacceptable as was correctly held by the District Judge, a decree eviction on the ground of arrears has to flow as a matter of course. The Trial judge has paid noted the admission of the petitioner during the course of cross examination that the statement in the Written Statement to the effect that the rent paid until August, 1982 was erroneous. In the course of his crossion, the petitioner made the following admission: "It is wrongly mentioned in my Written Statement in para 5 that I had paid the ground rent to the plaintiff of Rs. 40/- p.m. till August, 1982", ing of the trial Judge that there were arrears between May, 1981 and 82 was based on the record. There is no infirmity in the finding or in the finding judgment of the Appellate Court. 40/- p.m. till August, 1982", ing of the trial Judge that there were arrears between May, 1981 and 82 was based on the record. There is no infirmity in the finding or in the finding judgment of the Appellate Court. Similarly, both the Courts below satisfied in holding that in setting up a case that the petitioner was the of the superstructure there was a denial of title on the part of the tenant of lord. In fact, even the Written Statement would ex-facie show that it was the case of the petitioner, that there was no relationship of a landlord and in respect of the superstructure and the superstructure was of the owner the petitioners. 12. In the course of the judgment, the Trial Judge stated that the had attained the status of a protected tenant under section 15A of the R That observation was unnecessary for the purposes of the discussion eventual finding thereon. The landlord had, the Court is informed, pre cross objection before the District Judge and it is, to my mind, necessary Court to observe that the finding in regard to the existence of a deemed under section 15A is unwarranted. Inasmuch as the occupancy of t commenced in May, 1981, there was no question of the conferment of tenancy. There was, however, sufficient material on the record to establish tenancy of the petitioner. The dispute between the parties was as to which extent of the interest of the defendant related to a leasehold interest of the a tenancy in the structure thereon. The finding of tenancy is also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2, Ramchandra Laxman Dighe who prod assessment record of the Municipal Corporation. 13. In conclusion, therefore, there is no merit in the submission petitioner that the case has not been correctly evaluated by the District that there is no evaluation at all. Having negatived the defence of the that he had paid rent and that there were no arrears, the District Judge justified in confirming the decree for eviction. For the reasons which already been noted earlier, it is impossible to accede to the contention tenant had adopted a mutually destructive plea or that the Civil Judge Division has no jurisdiction to dispose of the suit. Once it is held petitioner was indeed a tenant of the suit premises, the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Once it is held petitioner was indeed a tenant of the suit premises, the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The suit was maintainable. The findings been recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any error. There merit in the petition. The petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. 14. On the request of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners decree shall not executed for a period of six weeks, subject to the fill usual undertaking within a period of two weeks from today.