JUDGMENT Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.:- 1. The plaintiff is the appellant against the impugned judgment of affirmation passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sealdah in Title Appeal No.26 of 2005. 2. The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No.367 of 1999 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah alleging that plaintiff was a tenant in respect of ‘A’ schedule property under proforma defendant No.6. It is further case that initially said tenancy was taken jointly by the plaintiff and his cousin Debi Das Ghosal. It is specific case that on 24th April, 1998 the plaintiff and his family members together with cousin Debi Das Ghosal had been to their native place keeping the ‘Ka’ schedule property under lock and key. It is further case that on 2nd May, 1998 on return from the native village they found that the northern side door of the suit room was unlocked and a partition wall up to the height of 5 ft. / 6 ft. was raised and that said portion was under wrongful occupation of defendant No.1 Chhanda Singh with the help of defendant No.2. It is further alleged that Debi Das Ghosal surrendered his tenancy to the landlord Kalipada Ghosh on 22nd June, 1998 and since then plaintiff became the sole tenant of the ‘Ka’ schedule property. It is further case that on 28.09.1999 when defendant Nos. 1 – 5 along with antisocial elements tried to evict the plaintiff from the remaining portion of his tenanted room, plaintiff lodged diary at the local P.S. on that day and filed this suit praying for declaration, recovery of khas possession, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and other reliefs. 3. The proforma defendant No.6 Kalipada Ghosh filed a written statement supporting the plaintiff’s case and admitting plaintiff as his tenant in respect of ‘Ka’ schedule property. 4. The defendant No.1 Chhanda Singh contested the suit by filing a written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that the father of defendant No.1 was a tenant in respect of one room in the second floor of the suit house for long and that on his death the defendant No.1 inherited said tenancy and that she also took tenancy in respect of another room in the same floor from landlords being defendant Nos. 3 – 5 about 15 years back and was in possession of two tenanted rooms. The plaintiff’s case has no leg to stand upon and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Both sides adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit after contested hearing. Learned Lower Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. 6. At the time of admission of this second appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed:- (a) Whether the learned Courts below committed substantial error of law in dismissing the suit by relying upon mere slip of tongue of the plaintiff in his deposition that he was inducted in the year 1999 whereas other documents exhibited by the plaintiff show that he was in the property even prior to that date and such fact has been admitted by defendant No.6, the co-sharer landlord, who inducted the plaintiff; (b) The plaintiff appellant having impleaded all the co-sharers of the property in the suit but in spite of that none of them having failed to support defendant No.1 whether the learned courts below committed substantial error of law in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove tenancy; (c) Whether the learned courts below committed substantial error of law in overlooking the fact that the inducting landlord of the plaintiff having admitted induction of the plaintiff in the property and other co-sharers-landlord in spite of being impleaded in the suit not having disputed such claim whether the learned courts of appeal below committed substantial error of law in disbelieving the case of the plaintiff; (d) In views of the admitted fact that none of the landlords supported defendant No.1 as to the induction and extent of tenancy claimed by him whether the learned courts of appeal below committed substantial error of laws in dismissing the claim of the plaintiff; 7. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant plaintiff, submits that learned Courts below dismissed the suit on wrong premises namely neither the plaintiff nor his landlord (proforma defendant No.6) lodged any police diary just after discovery of the alleged act of criminal trespass by defendant Nos. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant plaintiff, submits that learned Courts below dismissed the suit on wrong premises namely neither the plaintiff nor his landlord (proforma defendant No.6) lodged any police diary just after discovery of the alleged act of criminal trespass by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, suit property was vague, plaintiff while deposing in the cross-examination stated at one place that he was inducted in the suit premises in April, 1999, the rent receipts for the initial periods namely April, 1998 onwards were not filed vis-à-vis filing of rent receipts by defendant No.1 alleged to be issued by her landlords namely defendant Nos. 3 – 5. Mr. Chatterjee submits that admittedly there were several co-sharers namely defendant Nos. 3 – 6 of the suit house and some of the co-sharers inducted some of the tenants from which they collected rents and that all the co-sharers were residing at a distant place in the Burdwan district. According to him, as proforma defendant No.6 being landlord of the plaintiff was residing in a distant place at the Burdwan district, he had no knowledge of said illegal encroachment of a portion of the suit room by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and as such no adverse inference should be drawn for not lodging any police complaint / G. D. by said landlord. He further submits that though said landlord of the plaintiff deposed as P.W.2 in support of plaintiff’s case but his evidence was discarded only on the ground that he was present while plaintiff as P.W.1 was being examined. According to him, this stand taken by learned Courts below was not tenable in law. He next submits that though the contesting defendant’s landlords being proforma defendant Nos. 3 – 5 were made parties in the suit but they neither appeared to contest the suit nor appeared to depose in favour of the contesting defendant No.1 acknowledging her as their tenants in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property. In this connection Mr. Chatterjee further submits that single statement of the plaintiff (P.W.1) stating that he was inducted in April, 1999 should not be given much stress as the evidence of a witness should be read as a whole. In this connection Mr. Chatterjee further submits that single statement of the plaintiff (P.W.1) stating that he was inducted in April, 1999 should not be given much stress as the evidence of a witness should be read as a whole. In support of his contention he refers case laws reported in 1970 (1) SCC page 558 (Chikkam Koreswara Rao vs. Chikkam Subba Rao and others) and (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases page 751 (Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh). He further submits that as contesting defendant No.1 failed to produce the best witness namely her landlords in support of her claim of alleged tenancy in the ‘B’ schedule property an adverse inference should be drawn against her. In this connection he has referred case laws reported in AIR 1968 SC page 1413 (Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and others) and AIR 1982 Calcutta page 294 (Dukhiram Dey vs. Mrityunjoy Prosad Daw and others). He further submits that the appellant plaintiff could not produce the rent receipts of the plaintiff for the initial periods starting from April, 98 and also document of surrender of the joint tenancy by Debi Das Ghosal as those documents were not in possession of the plaintiff during trial as those were filed in some other cases going on between the parties. According to Mr. Chatterjee the appellant plaintiff should be given opportunity for ends of justice to produce those documents for proper adjudication of the suit and that for that purpose the matter may be remanded back to the learned Court below after setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 8. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that learned Courts below failed to take note of the averments of the defendant No.1 made in her application under Section 144 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in M. P. case No.997 of 1998 (Ext.8) wherein she stated that she was tenant in respect of one room in the suit house thereby denying her claim of tenancy in respect of two rooms in the suit house. 9. Mr. Tarak Nath Halder, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, supports plaintiff appellant’s case. 10. Mr. Rabindra Nath Dutta learned counsel for the respondent defendant No.1, on the other hand, submits that this appeal was not sustainable as practically no substantial question of law is involved in this case. 9. Mr. Tarak Nath Halder, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, supports plaintiff appellant’s case. 10. Mr. Rabindra Nath Dutta learned counsel for the respondent defendant No.1, on the other hand, submits that this appeal was not sustainable as practically no substantial question of law is involved in this case. He next submits that the plaintiff must prove his own case without relying on the weaknesses, if any, of the defendant’s case. According to him, it came out during evidence of plaintiff (P.W.1) that there was agreement of tenancy in between their landlord and Debi Das Ghosal and that at that time there was no agreement with the plaintiff. According to him, if that be the position then plaintiff got tenancy only after alleged surrender of the same by Debi Das Ghosal on 22.06.1998 when as per plaintiff’s case a portion of the suit room was already under the alleged illegal possession of the contesting defendant. According to him, if that be the alleged factual position then how the landlord can give tenancy to the appellant plaintiff in respect of entire ‘ka’ schedule property. He next submits that during evidence plaintiff filed some alleged rent receipts without bearing signature of the landlord and accordingly learned Trial Court did not put much reliance on the same and those were also of the later years and not of the 1998. According to him, neither in the Trial Court nor in the Lower Appellate Court plaintiff filed the alleged rent receipts for the year 1998 and that during hearing of this second appeal he is trying to produce some anti dated manufactured rent receipts in collusion with his landlord the proforma defendant No.6 and that the prayer for production of document should be rejected. His next submission is that learned Trial Court was justified in not placing any reliance on the evidence of plaintiff’s landlord (P.W.2) as he admitted to be present while the evidence of plaintiff (P.W.1) was taken down by the Court. In support of his contention he referred a case law reported in AIR 1966 Kerala page 316 (Dr. His next submission is that learned Trial Court was justified in not placing any reliance on the evidence of plaintiff’s landlord (P.W.2) as he admitted to be present while the evidence of plaintiff (P.W.1) was taken down by the Court. In support of his contention he referred a case law reported in AIR 1966 Kerala page 316 (Dr. Kasi Iyer vs. State of Kerala) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that to ensure a fair trial even in the absence of any specific provision in any enactment the Court has inherent power to order that no witness who has to give evidence should be present when the deposition of other witnesses are being examined until he himself is examined as a witness. It was further held therein that the Court has inherent power under Section 151 C. P. C. not to consider the evidence of such witness who remained present during the evidence of earlier witness and thereafter deposed. 11. There is no denial that the question as to whether a person is a tenant in respect of suit room and what is the extent of his tenancy and whether he was illegally dispossessed from a part of the same are all questions of fact. Both the Courts below came to concurrent findings of fact that plaintiff failed to establish that he was a tenant in respect of ‘B’ schedule property also or that he was illegally dispossessed therefrom by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. At the time of hearing of the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has no power to interfere with said concurrent findings of fact of learned Courts below unless it can be shown that those were based on no evidence or were based on extraneous matters or were passed disregarding settled principles of law. 12. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels of the parties as well as the cases referred by them. 13. It is true that only in one place during his cross-examination plaintiff (P.W.1) stated that he was inducted in the suit room in April, 1999 though in all other places he stated the month of starting of his tenancy was April, 1998. As such said one statement of the plaintiff should not be singled out to give much importance in view of other evidence on record. 14. As such said one statement of the plaintiff should not be singled out to give much importance in view of other evidence on record. 14. On perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned judgment I find that learned Trial Court did not consider the evidence of plaintiff’s landlord (P.W.2) not only on the ground of being present during evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1 but also on the ground of his contradicting evidence which amounted to telling lies before the Court. Learned Courts below also observed that in case of a criminal trespass into a portion of the tenant room it is natural for the occupier (plaintiff) to rush to the police station to lodge a case or at least to lodge a general diary but no such step was taken from the side of the plaintiff without any explanation. Said observations of learned Courts below on this score are quite natural and I find no infirmity in the same. Learned Courts below also took exception for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce rent receipts showing commencement of the tenancy in the suit room from April, 1998 without any explanation. Had those been filed in any other Court as presently alleged then the same should have been stated in the Courts below but it appears that at no point of time said plea was taken therein. It further appears that even the rent receipts filed by the plaintiff for some subsequent years were also found to be not trustworthy having writings thereupon with different inks without any explanation for the same. There is no denial that plaintiff’s case must stand on its own leg and cannot succeed on the weakness on the part of the defendant’s case. It appears that the contesting defendant was able to produce his rent receipts showing tenancy in respect of two rooms issued by her landlords. It is true that her landlords being respondent defendant Nos. 3 – 5 did not care to contest the suit. But that cannot be a ground to disbelieve her evidence or her documents of tenancy namely rent receipts. For proving the rent receipts coming of the landlord on the dock is not necessary. It is true that her landlords being respondent defendant Nos. 3 – 5 did not care to contest the suit. But that cannot be a ground to disbelieve her evidence or her documents of tenancy namely rent receipts. For proving the rent receipts coming of the landlord on the dock is not necessary. It appears that the petition of complaint filed by defendant No.1 in M.P. Case No.997 of 1998 (Ext.8) on which learned counsel for the appellant plaintiff put much reliance was not also of much assistance to the appellant plaintiff as it was stated therein that the partition was raised in the room and that there was disturbance from the side of the plaintiff to take possession of the same. 15. The prayer of the appellant plaintiff in this forum for seeking the leave of the Court to produce further evidence namely rent receipts and surrender receipt of Debi Das Ghosal cannot be allowed at this stage as during trial or even during hearing in the learned Lower Appellate Court the appellant plaintiff did not give any explanation as to why those important documents were not produced at that point of time. Even when plaintiff’s landlord (P.W.2) was examined in Court no step was taken from the side of the plaintiff to ask him to produce the counterfoil of the rent book showing starting of plaintiff’s tenancy in the suit room from April, 1998 as well as the extent of tenancy. Apart from that no application under Order 41 Rule 27 praying for filing those documents was also filed. 16. It appears that learned courts below came to the concurrent findings of fact on the basis of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, adduced by both the parties and as such it cannot be said that said findings of facts of learned Courts below were based on no evidence or were perverse. It is true that perhaps there is scope of coming to a different findings of fact on the basis of evidence on record by viewing it from a different angle, but this Court while hearing a second appeal cannot act as a third court of finding of fact. This Court cannot also interfere with a mistaken findings of fact of learned Courts below so long the same cannot be said to be perverse on the grounds as stated above. This Court cannot also interfere with a mistaken findings of fact of learned Courts below so long the same cannot be said to be perverse on the grounds as stated above. I have already stated that findings of fact of the learned Courts below were based on evidence and hence there was no perversity justifying interference by this Court during hearing of the second appeal. 17. As a result, the appeal stands dismissed on contest. 18. However, I pass no order as to costs. 19. Send down Lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the Lower Court at the earliest. 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to learned counsels of the parties, if applied for.