JUDGMENT Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants against the judgment of affirmation. The plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction alleging that they purchased the premises No. 14B Samsul Huda Road, Kolkata-17 from its owner Shantimoy Banerjee through a kobala. The plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy one room and some open space of said premises as a licensee for two months without any licence fee. As the defendant did not vacate the suit premises in spite of repeated requests, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for eviction after revocation of the licence. The defendant contested said suit by filing a written statement followed by an additional statement. It is alleged that one Jumrati was the thika tenant in the suit property under its original owner Shantimoy Banerjee and that on his death said thika tenancy devolved upon his only son Nazir Ahmed. Nazir Ahmed inducted the defendant in the southern half of the three cottahs of the land at a monthly rental of Rs. 55/-. The defendant started his business by raising new structures on said land. After passing of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 thika tenants become direct tenants under the State and Shantimoy Banerjee had no saleable interest in the suit property and hence plaintiff did not get any title to the suit property on the alleged purchase of the same from Shantimoy Banerjee. On 22.09.1977 the defendant Abid Hossain entered into an agreement with Nazir Ahmed for purchasing his Thika Tenancy Right in the suit property. It was further case that there was a tripartite agreement dated 22.09.1977 in between the defendant, plaintiff No. 1 and Nazir Ahmed and accordingly plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant acquired thika tenanted land of Nazir Ahmed, each of them having one and half cottahs of land. The defendant submitted returns to the Kolkata Thika Controller after coming into operation of Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act of 1981. The defendant was never inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff as a licensee and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 2. The defendant submitted returns to the Kolkata Thika Controller after coming into operation of Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act of 1981. The defendant was never inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff as a licensee and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 2. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant was inducted in the suit property as a licensee under them as plaintiffs purchased the suit property only in 1983 whereas it was proved that the defendant was in possession of the same since 1973 and running a business thereupon. 3. The plaintiffs filed an appeal (Title Appeal No. 169 of 1994) against said judgment of dismissal. However, said appeal was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore vide judgment dated 12.09.1995 after contested hearing. Hence is this second appeal. 4. The appeal was heard on the following substantial questions of law. (1) Whether learned Court of Appeal substantially erred in law by ignoring the document of surrender of Thika Tenancy by thika tenant Nazir Ahmed in favour of owner Shantimoy Banerjee (Ext. 4) on the ground of it being an undated one though a date was affixed in the document. (2) Whether learned Court below substantially erred in law by observing that plaintiff failed to establish that Shantimoy Banerjee had transferable right of the suit land to the plaintiff and that plaintiff was not entitled to file a suit for eviction. (3) Whether learned Court below substantially erred in law by observing that plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree of eviction by applying wrong legal test. 5. Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants, submits that plaintiffs' vendor Shantimoy Banerjee was admittedly the owner of the suit property including other properties. According to him, Nazir Ahmed, the thika tenant occupying the suit property which is a part of premises No. 14 Samsul Huda Road and has since renumbered as 14B, Samsul Huda Road, surrendered his thika tenancy right in respect of the suit premises on receipt of compensation for the structure from the owner by a surrendered document dated 1st of September, 1976 (Ext. 4). Mr. 4). Mr. Roychowdhury submits that though learned Lower Appellate Court did not put any reliance on said document claiming it to be undated but the document clearly bears a date being 1st of September, 1976. According to him, learned Lower Appellate Court should not have discarded said vital document on a flimsy ground. He next submits that said document was marked as an exhibit (Ext. 4) after formal proof being dispensed with and that a party cannot raise any objection against said document on the ground of its admissibility. In this connection he refers case laws reported in AIR 1972 SC 608 (P. C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal) and (2007 (1) CLJ (SC)) (Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal). 6. He next submits that the defendant respondent took two contradicting stands. In one hand he claimed that plaintiff No. 1 Abid Hossain and said defendant entered into an agreement dated 22.09.1977 with Nazir Ahmed, thika tenant, for purchase of the right of Nazir Ahmed on the suit property and that he further took a plea that he came into possession of the suit property as a tenant under Nazir Ahmed at a monthly rental of Rs. 55/- while Nazir Ahmed was occupying three cottahs of land as thika tenant under Shantimioy Banerjee. According to him, said alleged agreement did not confer any right upon the respondent tenant. He further submits that the defendant also failed to establish his alleged tenancy under thika tenant Nazir Ahmed in the suit property and that learned Trial Court also took note of the same. According to Mr. Roychowdhury, when the respondent tenant failed to establish his specific right of possession either as a thika tenant or as a tenant in the suit property then it has to be presumed that since purchase of the property by the plaintiffs he became licensee under them even if it is not proved that plaintiffs inducted the defendant in the suit property as a licensee. He further submits that as the thika tenant Nazir Ahmed surrendered his thika tenancy to the land owner Shantimoy Banerjee on first of September, 1976 through said document of surrender (Ext. 4), the coming into force of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 had no bearing on said land as on that day the land owner Shantimoy was in possession of said land. According to Mr. 4), the coming into force of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 had no bearing on said land as on that day the land owner Shantimoy was in possession of said land. According to Mr. Roychowdhury, learned Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate that said Act of 1981 had no application in the facts and circumstances of the case and came to a wrong conclusion by applying wrong legal test. 7. Mr. Roychowdhury further submits that even if it was proved that the defendant respondent was in possession of the suit premises even from a date prior to purchase of the same by the plaintiffs but as he failed to establish his alleged thika tenancy right or any right over the same the plaintiffs having better title are entitled to get a decree of eviction and that learned Courts below failed to appreciate the same. In respect of his contention he refers case laws reported in AIR 1966 SC 735 (Bhagwati Prasad vs. Chandramaul) and AIR 1975 Cal 200 (Amulya Ratan Mukherjee and others vs. Kali Pada Tah and others). 8. His last contention is that as per oral evidence of the respondent defendant he was in possession of a portion of premises No. 14 Samsul Huda Road but suit premises was situated in 14B Samsul Huda Road and that the defendant claimed his right, if any, in respect of 14 Samsul Huda Road and not in the suit premises i.e., 14 B Samsul Huda Road and hence the appellants were entitled to get a decree for eviction of the defendant from the premises No. 14 B i.e., the suit premises. 9. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned counsel for the defendant respondent, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiffs claimed that they granted licence to the defendant after their purchase in 1983 but there were overwhelming documents in the record to show that the defendant was in possession of the same since 1973, He next submits that during evidence the defendant produced his tenancy document dated 01.02.1973 (Ext. G) (under Nazir Ahmed) and a bunch of money order receipts and other documents to show that he was in possession of the portion of premises No. 14 Samsul Huda Road which was under the occupation of thika tenant Nazir Ahmed on payment of money and continued his business thereupon. G) (under Nazir Ahmed) and a bunch of money order receipts and other documents to show that he was in possession of the portion of premises No. 14 Samsul Huda Road which was under the occupation of thika tenant Nazir Ahmed on payment of money and continued his business thereupon. He next submits that defendant also produced a document of understanding dated 05.08.1977 (Ext. C) executed in between plaintiff No. 1 Abid Hossain and defendant regarding arrangements to be made between them for occupation of the Thika tenanted land of Nazir Ahmed as tenant under him. He next submits that the defendant also produced an agreement of sale dated 22.09.1977 (Ext. D) executed by Nazir Ahmed in one part and by Abid Hossain Plaintiff No. 1 (P.W. 1) and Abdul Kuddus (defendant) to show at least the status of the defendant under which he was possessing the property. According to Mr. Basu even if it is argued that this document did not create any thika tenancy in favour of the defendant in respect of the property in question but it is quite clear that the defendant was in possession of the same long before purchase of the same by the plaintiffs in 1983. He next submits that Abid Hossain plaintiff No. 1/(P.W. 1)being a signatory of both Ext. C dated 05.08.1977 and exhibit 'D' dated 22.09.1977 cannot be permitted to say at this stage that the thika tenancy of Nazir Ahmed stood surrendered on 01.09.1976 through exhibit 4. According to Mr. Basu the alleged surrender of tenancy dated 01.09.1976 (Ext. 4) is suspicious document from its very appearance and is also against trend of evidence as came on the record and that learned Courts below were justified to ignore said document. The last but not the least important argument of Mr. Basu is that as surrender of thika tenancy by Nazir Ahmed was not proved satisfactorily, plaintiffs' vendor Shantimoy Banerjee lost his ownership over the suit property after promulgation of the Act of 1981 and the defendant became direct tenant under the Government in respect of the suit property. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Basu is that as surrender of thika tenancy by Nazir Ahmed was not proved satisfactorily, plaintiffs' vendor Shantimoy Banerjee lost his ownership over the suit property after promulgation of the Act of 1981 and the defendant became direct tenant under the Government in respect of the suit property. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The admitted position of the case as it came out from the documents on record that plaintiffs' vendor Shantimoy Banerjee was original owner of the entire land measuring 9 cottahs at 14 Samsul Huda Road and that there were thika tenants over said land. It also came out that Nazir Ahmed was the thika tenant in respect of three cottahs of land lying in the middle portion. Admittedly, plaintiff purchased the portion of the land which was under the occupation of Nazir Ahmed from original owner Shantimoy Banerjee through two kobalas both dated 12.03.1983 (Ext. 1 and 1/1). It was the specific case of the plaintiffs as came out from the argument of learned senior counsel that as thika tenant Nazir Ahmed surrendered his thika tenancy right in favour of the land owner Shantimoy Banerjee through a surrender document dated 01.09.1976 (Ext. 4), the Act of 1981 had no adverse effect on said land as at that point of time the original land owner Shantimoy was in possession of the suit property. Admittedly, in terms of the Act of 1991 the land under possession of the thika tenants vested to the State and the thika tenants became direct tenant under the State. As such, if it can be shown that on the date of coming into force of the Act of 1981 land owner was in khas possession of the land then certainly he will continue to own and possess the same. Again, even if the thika tenant Nazir Ahmed gave any tenancy to any person in the suit property said sub-tenancy shall come to an end as soon as the original thika tenant surrendered his tenancy right in favour of the land owner. As such, entire case hinges upon said document of alleged surrender of thika tenancy by Nazir Hossain which was marked Ext. 4 in the case. It appears from the case record that at the initial stage said document was marked Ext. X for identification. As such, entire case hinges upon said document of alleged surrender of thika tenancy by Nazir Hossain which was marked Ext. 4 in the case. It appears from the case record that at the initial stage said document was marked Ext. X for identification. It further appears that during cross-examination of the defendant he admitted the signature of Nazir Ahmed on said document as a genuine one and thereafter said document was marked as an exhibit (Ext. 4) formal proof being dispensed with. When a document is marked as an exhibit after dispensing with its formal proof it only means that the document was signed by the person who was claimed to be its signatory. It does not mean that the contents of the document are admitted by the adversary. The person tendering the document has to prove the contents of the same according to law. Admittedly, Nazir Ahmed was not examined by the plaintiffs to admit the surrender of his thika tenancy in favour of land owner Shantimoy through said document. It was a document written in English wherein Nazir Ahmed put his signature without putting any date. It is true that one date being 01.09.1976 was given in the left hand side in the lower portion of said document but on plain reading of said document it appears that said date was not given at the time of the preparation of the document. The figures 1' and 7' appearing in the body of the document do not tally with the figures 1' and 7' appearing in the bottom of the document where the date was given. It is apparent even by naked eyes. As such, the document (Ext. 4) appears to be a suspicious document. This is more so in the backdrop of other evidence on record and the circumstances of the case. The document of arrangement dated 05.08.1977 (Ext. C) and the agreement of sale dated 22.09.1977 (Ext. D) bears the signature of Abid Hossain, plaintiff No. 1 (P.W. 1). One of the witnesses of said documents was examined in Court and deposed in support of execution of those documents in his presence and identified his signatures thereupon (Ext. C/1 and Ext. D/1). It is true that during evidence Abid Hossain (P.W. I) tried to deny the signatures of Abid Hossain bearing on the documents (Ext. C and Ext. D) as his signatures. C/1 and Ext. D/1). It is true that during evidence Abid Hossain (P.W. I) tried to deny the signatures of Abid Hossain bearing on the documents (Ext. C and Ext. D) as his signatures. However, on comparison of those signatures of Abid Hossain appearing on those two documents namely Ext. C and Ext. D with admitted signature of Abid Hossain on each page of the plaint it is quite clear that the person signing on the plaint as Abid Hossain was the signatory of those two documents i.e., Ext. C and Ext. D. Both those documents were executed after 1st of September, 1976, the alleged date of execution of alleged document of surrender of thika tenancy by Nazir Ahmed (Ext. 4). In view of these materials on record the observation of learned Lower Appellate Court that the document of alleged surrender of thika, tenancy (Ext. 4) was a suspicious document and was not to be acted upon, cannot be said to be wrong or perverse. As this document of alleged surrender of thika tenancy of Nazir Ahmed (Ext. 4) is not accepted to be genuine one on the grounds stated above, the thika tenancy of Nazir Ahmed continued and the property under possession of Nazir Ahmed vested to the State in terms of relevant provisions of the Act of 1981 and the plaintiffs did not acquire any title over the same through their purchase deeds dated 12.03.1983 (Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/1). 11. The respondent defendant produced and proved his tenancy document dated 01,02.1972 and also exhibited a bunch of document to show that he sent money to Nazir Ahmed regularly through money order and that he deposited rent before the Thika Controller. But in the absence of any rent receipt the Courts below did not favour the defendant with any thika tenancy right over the land in question. If a landlord remains away from the suit property then the tenant has to send rent to him by money order and said money order coupons are documents of payment of rent even if there were no rent receipts. If a landlord remains away from the suit property then the tenant has to send rent to him by money order and said money order coupons are documents of payment of rent even if there were no rent receipts. Be that as it may learned Courts below did not think that the documents filed by the defendant were sufficient to establish his thika tenancy right in the suit property and there was no cross appeal on the part of the defendant and hence at this stage there is no scope to reconsider said claim of the respondent tenant. But I have already stated that the plaintiffs did not acquire any title in the suit land by their purchase from the original land owner Shantimoy Banerjee in 1983 as said land vested to the State in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1981. There is no dispute that if plaintiffs' title in the suit property is established then plaintiffs would have been entitled to get a decree of eviction against the defendant even if they failed to establish creation of licence as defendant also failed to establish his specific tenancy right over the same and plaintiffs had better title over the suit property. As plaintiffs failed to establish the title over the property on the ground stated above the aforesaid case laws as cited by Mr. Roychowdhury had no application in this case. 12. The respondent defendant all along asserted during his evidence that he was possessing a portion of premises No. 14 and that he had no claim over any other premises or over any other land which he is not possessing. It is true that the respondent defendant did not claim his right of possession over premises No. 14 B but admittedly premises No. 14 B was the part of the premises No. 14 which was under the occupation of Nazir Ahmed as a thika tenant. As defendant all along claimed his right of possession over the land under his occupation which was nothing but a part of the land under occupation of Nazir Ahmed as a thika tenant, it mattered little whether defendant specifically pleaded the correct premises number or not either in his written statement or during his evidence. 13. As defendant all along claimed his right of possession over the land under his occupation which was nothing but a part of the land under occupation of Nazir Ahmed as a thika tenant, it mattered little whether defendant specifically pleaded the correct premises number or not either in his written statement or during his evidence. 13. In view of discussions as made above I am of opinion that the concurrent findings of learned Courts below that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree of eviction against respondent defendant do not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is hereby dismissed on contest. 14. However, I pass no order as to costs. 15. Send down Lower Court records along with a copy of this judgment to the Lower Court at the earliest. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to learned counsels of the parties, if applied for. Appeal dismissed