Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Judgment of reversal stands challenged by the defendant-appellant Mahender Raj (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), in the present appeal, filed under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether First Appellate Court has misread, mis-interpreted and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties especially statement of PW-6 Karam Singh, statement of all the witnesses of the appellant and also revenue record, which has resulted in failure and mis-carriage of justice to the appellant? 2. Whether without proving the factum of rent, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant? 3. Whether plaintiff/respondent is not exclusive owner of the suit land which is abadideh? 2. Respondent-plaintiff Tek Chand (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for ejectment from suit property, comprising of four rooms and a shop existing upon Khasra No.242, measuring 0-4-8 bighas, Mohal Palli/591, Tehsil Paddar, District Mandi. Allegedly plaintiff, being owner, had let out the suit property to the defendant on a monthly rental of `600/-. Despite demands, defendant failed to pay rent and as such notice (Ex. P-5) determining his tenancy, calling upon him to hand over possession, was got issued by the plaintiff. Defendant failed to comply with the same and as such, plaintiff filed the suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent, amounting to `7,200/-. 3. Defendant resisted the suit, denying plaintiff’s ownership and any tenancy under him. On the contrary, he claimed ownership of the suit land and possession by way of adverse possession. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property and defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the defendant is in arrear of rent? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD 8. Whether the defendant is owner of the disputed premises as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD 8. Whether the defendant is owner of the disputed premises as alleged? OPD 8-A. If issue No.8, is not proved, whether the defendant in alternative has become owner by way of adverse possession as alleged? If so its effect? OPD 9. Relief. 5. Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.58/97, titled as Tek Chand v. Mahender Raj, dismissed the suit, holding the plaintiff not to have proved his right, title or interest in the suit premises. Also, that defendant had raised superstructure over the suit land. However, his plea of ownership by way of adverse possession was found not to have been established, hence plea rejected. Issues were thus answered accordingly. 6. Findings of fact, judgment and decree stands reversed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.4.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No.46 of 2003, titled as Tek Chand v. Mahneder Raj. Plaintiff’s suit stands decreed on all counts. Substantial Questions of Law No.1 & 3 7. Both these substantial questions of law are interconnected, hence are being discussed and answered together. 8. The property in question, as is evident from revenue record, which fact is also not disputed, was owned by Smt. Chinti Devi. In the year 1944, by way of a Gift Deed (Ex. PW-13/K), ownership was transferred in the name of Tek Chand (plaintiff) and his brother Sansar Chand. Record reveals that Sansar Chand transferred his share by way of Gift Deed (Ex. PW-2/B) in favour of Jogindra Devi, who in turn sold it to Kala Devi wife of Inder Dass. It has also come on record that over the suit land there was a house, which was vertically divided into two portions. One portion, by virtue of Gift Deed, came into possession of Tek Chand and the remaining half was given to Sansar Chand. 9. It be only observed that there are enumerable documents on record to establish plaintiff’s ownership over the land underneath the superstructure, subject matter of the suit. There is revenue record, i.e. Jamabandis (Ex. P-1, P-2, P-3 & P-4), so proved by the plaintiff and official witnesses. 9. It be only observed that there are enumerable documents on record to establish plaintiff’s ownership over the land underneath the superstructure, subject matter of the suit. There is revenue record, i.e. Jamabandis (Ex. P-1, P-2, P-3 & P-4), so proved by the plaintiff and official witnesses. On the other hand, there is no proof of ownership of the suit land in favour of the defendant. Document (Ex.PX) is the Misl Hakiat, showing that on preparation of fresh record, Khasra numbers stand changed and the suit land, after settlement, was recorded as 0-4-8 bighas, instead of 0-3-0 bighas, as originally depicted in the revenue record. Lower Appellate Court, in Para-13 of the judgment has squarely dealt with this aspect of the matter. Thus, plaintiff has been able to establish his right, title or interest in the land over which superstructure exists. Significantly, defendant’s plea of adverse possession stands turned down by the trial Court, which findings were accepted and have thus attained finality. 10. In this backdrop, it was for the defendant to have established his legal status in the superstructure built over the suit land, for it is not his case that land was lying abandoned and he raised his structure thereupon, taking it to be his own. Also, it is not the case of defendant that he was allowed to raise the superstructure either by Chinti Devi/Sansar Chand/Jogindra Devi/Kala Devi or was ever put into possession by them. Defendant had to explain his status in the suit property. 11. That apart, careful consideration of the material on record only reveals that there are admissions made by the defendant of not owning any land or property as also being put into possession in the suit property by the plaintiff. Defendant’s own witness, namely Bhoop Singh (DW-4) admits that the structure over the suit land was built by plaintiff’s ancestor Smt. Chinti Devi, from where a shop was being run, which eventually was gifted to the plaintiff. Also plaintiff’s witness Shri I.D. Tyagi (PW-9), who is a practicing Advocate, has clarified that in the year 1987, plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant over the suit property. It is true that there is no written deed on record, but then significantly, prior to filing of the suit, defendant did not refute the factum of tenancy. There is yet another document (Ex. It is true that there is no written deed on record, but then significantly, prior to filing of the suit, defendant did not refute the factum of tenancy. There is yet another document (Ex. PW-14/C), in the shape of written statement, so filed by the defendant, pleading that he “does not own and possess property to meet the award/ decretal amount as was also found out during the recovery proceedings”. This admission dated 27.4.2002 was made by him in proceedings initiated by one Shiv Ram. Not only that defendant, made a statement on oath in Civil Suit No.12/88, titled as Mahender Raj v. Sita Ram, to the effect that “these days I have taken Tek Chand’s house on rent”. That tenancy pertains to only one premises cannot be disputed. 12. Perusal of testimony of Shri Karam Singh (PW-6) only reveals that the same has been correctly appreciated by the lower Appellate Court. Electricity connection installed in the suit premises, as is evident from document (Ex.PW-6/A-PA), was originally in the name of the plaintiff. The same was disconnected. It was under these circumstances that electric connection in the name of defendant was sought to be installed. 13. It has come on record that on account of tremors of earthquake, the built up structure was damaged and it is for this reason that the defendant got the suit premises repaired. 14. Only conclusion, which can be derived from perusal of testimonies of the plaintiff’s witnesses, is that the same have been completely/correctly read and appreciated, while returning findings of fact in favour of the plaintiff. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity therein. Hence, substantial questions of law No.1 and 3 are answered accordingly. Substantial Question of Law No.2 15. It is true that there is no rent note on record, but then, as already discussed, there is admission on the part of defendant that he is a tenant under the plaintiff. Also defendant did not refute the contents of notice (Ex. P-5) determining the tenancy. Under these circumstances, it would not lie in the mouth of the defendant to dispute his relationship as a tenant. Substantial Question of Law is answered accordingly. 16. Also defendant did not refute the contents of notice (Ex. P-5) determining the tenancy. Under these circumstances, it would not lie in the mouth of the defendant to dispute his relationship as a tenant. Substantial Question of Law is answered accordingly. 16. Reliance on behalf of the defendant on the decisions rendered by this Court in Smt. Vidhya Devi and others v. Shri Kashmir Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 206; and Ganga Devi and another v. Ashok Kumar and others, Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 721 is misconceived, for the instant suit is not for partition of the abadi deh land. 17. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the lower Appellate Court are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.