Judgment: This order is passed with regard to admissibility of this second appeal. 2. The appellant has filed this second appeal under section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25/8/2012 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Morena (MP) in first appeal no. 12-A/11, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2011 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-I, Morena in civil suit no. 33-A/09, dismissing the suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the trial court on the ground that her uncle was the tenant in the suit accommodation at the rate of Rs.8/- per month and after death of her uncle, the appellant/plaintiff is residing in the suit accommodation and paying the rent at the rate of Rs.25/- per month and the rent upto March, 2008 has been paid to the respondent/defendant. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant has not been receiving the rent and now, the defendant is trying to oust the appellant/plaintiff from the suit accommodation, therefore, the appellant filed a suit for declaring that she is tenant of the suit accommodation at the rate of Rs.25/- per month and until and unless there is decree of eviction, the respondent/defendant be restrained not to interfere in her possession. 4. Both the courts below have given concurrent finding that it has not been proved that the plaintiff is the tenant of defendant and paying rent regularly. It has further not been proved that the defendant is trying to dispossess the appellant forcefully. The concurrent finding of both the courts below is arrived at by considering the evidence that there is no receipt of payment of rent by the appellant and even, the appellant/plaintiff is not residing at Morena. It has also been held that uncle of the plaintiff was residing in the suit accommodation as caretaker on behalf of the defendant and his father and, therefore, her permissible possession cannot be taken as tenant. 5. The appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for bringing on record the documents showing that she is residing at Morena in the suit premises but the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention towards the statement of plaintiff who has admitted in cross examination that there was no deed executed for tenancy. She is not having any receipt of rent. She is not having any receipt of rent. She is not able to mention the dates on which rent was paid. She has further admitted that she has not filed any document showing that she and her son are residing at Morena. She has denied that she is not having voter card, ration card or domicile certificate. She has admitted that she is having those documents but she has not filed as she did not feel it necessary. 6. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she is living in the suit premises as tenant. For bringing the receipts that she is residing in the suit premises she was required to produce documents but she has not filed the documents which were in her possession and not only at the time of filing of suit but the documents were also not produced even at the stage of first appeal. Even the witness PW-2 Dhannalal has admitted in cross-examination that Munshi Khan was living in the suit house. He has stated that he has seen Munshi paying rent at the rate of Rs.20-25/- per month while the pleading of the plaintiff is that Munshi was paying rent at the rate of Rs.8/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that for taking additional documents on record there is no necessity of taking additional evidence or fresh trial and the documents are necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it has been admitted by the plaintiff's witnesses that Munshi was caretaker or watchman of the suit premises and the suit for permanent injunction in that capacity is not maintainable. He has cited judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriay Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam,, AIR 2012 SC 2010 in which it has been held that the suit for permanent injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act against dispossession, the plaintiff in possession of the property as watchman/caretaker or servant employed to look after property is not maintainable irrespective of his long possession. 9. 9. The finding regarding capacity of Munshi Khan and plaintiff, at the most permissive possession of Munshi Khan and plaintiff is a finding of fact and considering the concurrent finding of both the courts below in this regard and further considering the fact that no document regarding payment of rent has been produced by the plaintiff and it is admitted by the witnesses of the plaintiff that Munshi Khan was caretaker of the suit premises, both the courts below are justified in dismissing the suit and even on considering the documents filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in absence of any receipt or proof of agreement whether oral or written, the appellant/plaintiff cannot be treated as tenant in the suit premises, therefore, looking to the fact that there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.