JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Ramganjmandi Distt. Kota in Civil Appeal No. 1/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.4.2001 passed by Civil Judge (L.D.) Ramganjmandi in Civil Suit No. 33/1994 for permanent injunction has been reversed by the appellate court and the suit has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that he is the tenant in the disputed shop and he is paying regular rent to the defendant, he cannot be evicted from the premises without due process of law. Per contra, the contention of the respondent before the court below was that he is only a licencee and court below has decreed the suit that the appellant should not be evicted from the premises without due process of law. The findings have been reversed by the appellate court and it was held that the appellant is only a trespasser in the property, hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the appellant is that appellate court has wrongly reversed the findings of court below. It was amply proved by the evidence of the plaintiff that he is tenant in the premises, the appellate court has misread the evidence and the findings are per verse.Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that there is no perversity in the judgment and decree under appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal. 5. The appellate court has rightly held that PW/1 Mangilal has stated that he has obtained rent receipts, he used to enter the rent in his Khata Bahi and diary but none of the documents have been produced before the court below and first appellate court has rightly held that trial court has not appreciated the evidence of plaintiff in right perspective. The burden was on the appellant to prove that he is tenant in the premises, he was having documents for the same which has not been produced, the appellate court has taken an adverse inference against the appellant. Other witnesses have also been considered by the first appellate court, hence there is no misreading or perversity in the findings of the appellate court. Other witnesses have also been considered by the first appellate court, hence there is no misreading or perversity in the findings of the appellate court. The appellate court has also held that the appellant remained miserably failed to prove the fact that he is the tenant in the premises. Appellant himself has admitted that he has taken the premises from respondent. He has not been held to be a tenant, hence he remained only a trespasser and decree for possession has rightly been ordered, no perversity has been shown in the findings of the first appellate court nor any substantial question of law has been shown by the appellant.In the light of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. At this stage, the contention of the appellate is that this is the only property which fetches his livelihood, he is an aged and poor person, hence a reasonable time may be allowed to him for vacating the suit premises. The counsel for the respondent has left the matter at the discretion of the courtIn the facts and circumstances of the case, one year time is allowed to the appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premise to plaintiffs-respondents on the following terms and conditions: (i) Plaintiff-appellant undertakes to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premise in dispute to defendant- respondent on or before 30.01.2015. Respondent shall not execute the impugned decree of eviction till 31.1.2015; (ii) Appellant undertakes to pay or deposit the arrears of rent, if any, within a period of two months from today and will continue to pay or deposit future mesne profit by 15th day of each succeeding month or in advance to respondents till the actual date of delivery of possession of the rented premise; (iii) Appellant further undertakes that he will not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the rented premise or any part thereof in favour of anyone else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period; (iv) Appellant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial Court within a period of one month from today with an advance copy to the learned counsel for respondent; (v) If appellant does not comply with any of the above terms and conditions and/or fails to make the payment of arrears of rent/ mesne profit within two months or future mesne profit/rent for consecutive three months, then it will be open for respondent to get the decree of eviction passed in his favour executed even before the aforesaid date and to initiate contempt proceedings in this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******