JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant, defendant No. 1, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 32/1994 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by plaintiff respondent No. 1 for mesne profits, eviction, possession and permanent injunction. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit against the appellant defendant No.1 and defendant-respondent No. 2 for eviction, mesne profits, possession and injunction relating to the suit property, the description of which has been given in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. I was averred that she had purchased the suit property from defendant No. 2 through registered sale-deed dated 4.10.1993. Defendant No.2 has purchased the said property from Rafiq Khan @ Mohammad Rafiq son of Bundu Khan through registered sale-deed dated 11.11.1967. At the time of the said transaction, defendant No. 2 disclosed that defendant No.1 had been residing in the disputed property since May, 1987 on monthly rent of Rs. 550/- and had made payment of the rent till September, 1991. It was further alleged that till the date of filing of the suit, defendant No.1 had made payment of rent for total 26 months but thereafter he did not make payment of rent and had committed default. It was further pleaded that the defendant made material alterations in the disputed premises and also created nuisance regarding which details were given in paragraph No. 16 of the suit. The premises is required by her for her own personal bona fide need. It was then mentioned that the defendant had denied the factum of her being owner of the property. Hence, on the basis of the above mentioned grounds, she is entitled to a decree for eviction against defendant No. 1. In the alternative, the plaintiff also claimed relief that in case the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' is not found to be proved then on the basis of ownership, decree of possession be passed in her favour. 3. Appellant defendant No. 1 filed his written statement to the suit and denied the facts mentioned in the same. In the alternative, the plaintiff also claimed relief that in case the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' is not found to be proved then on the basis of ownership, decree of possession be passed in her favour. 3. Appellant defendant No. 1 filed his written statement to the suit and denied the facts mentioned in the same. It was his case that since defendant No. 2 was not the owner of the disputed property he had no legal right to sell the disputed property to the plaintiff. In fact, Smt. Hafizan, mother of defendant No. 1 appellant and real elder sister of defendant No. 2 was the owner of the disputed property and she had purchased the same through defendant No.2 from Rafiq Khan @ Mohammad Rafiq Khan son of Bundu Khan. Defendant No. 2 kept the sale deed with him and after the death of Hafizan, defendant No. 1 is the owner of the property. He has also disputed the fact that he is the tenant in the disputed property. The grounds of ejectment mentioned in the suit are also denied. 4. Rahmatullah, defendant respondent No. 2 filed separate written statement and admitted the averments made in the plaint and submitted that since he was the maternal uncle of defendant No.1 neither any rent deed was executed nor any receipt of rent was given. It was also mentioned that defendant No. 1 is tenant in the disputed property from May, 1986 and not from 1987. 5. It was also mentioned that defendant No. 1 is tenant in the disputed property from May, 1986 and not from 1987. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the i following issues:- 1- vk;k okni= ds iSjk la[;k&1 esa of.kZr lEifRr] okfnuh us izfroknh la[;k&2 ls tfj;s jftLVMZ fodz; i= fnukad 16-11-93 dz; dhA ftl vk'k; dk uksfVl izfroknh la[;k&2 us izfroknh la[;k&1 dks fnukad 26-11-93 dks fn;k ;k izfroknh la[;k&1 bl lEifRr ij crkSj ekfyd dkfct gS\ 2- D;k izfroknh la[;k&1 us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdze dkfjr fd;k rFkk okfnuh izfroknh la[;k&1 ls fnukad 1-10-91 ls 55@& izfrekg dh nj ls izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 3- vk;k okfnuh dks fookfnr tk;nkn dh ;qfDr;qDr o ln~Hkkfod vko';drk gS 4- vk;k fookfnr ifjlj ls iw.kZ ;k vkaf'kd fu"dklu ls fdl i{k dks vis{kkd`r vf/kd dfBukbZ gS\ 5- D;k izfroknh la[;k&1 us okfnuh ds LokfeRo ls bUdkj fd;k gS\ 6- D;k izfroknh la[;k&1 us fookfnr ifjlj esa vukf/kd`r :i ls egRoiw.kZ ifjorZu fd;k gS\ 7- D;k izfroknh la[;k&1 us okni= ds iSjk la[;k&16 esa o.kZukuqlkj U;wlsUl mRiUu dj j[kh gS\ 8- D;k okfnuh fodYi esa] LokfeRo ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr lEifRr dk dCtk o {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 9- D;k okfnuh okafNr LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 10- vuqrks"k\ 6. . Thereafter, on 7th May, 1999 following two additional issues were framed:- 11- vk;k nk;jh nkos ls iwoZ 15 lky dh vof/k esa izfroknhx.k dk fookfnr edku ij dCtk ugha jgk] bl dkj.k nkok vUnj fe;kn gS\ 12- vk;k fookfnr edku dk cktkj ewY; ikap yk[k :i;k gS] blfy, dksVZ Qhl de vnk dh xbZ gS\ 7. To prove his case, the plaintiff-respondent examined PW.1 Aminuddin, PW. 2 Abdul Samad, PW.3 Mohammad Ahmad, P.W. 4 Fateh Mohammad, PW.5 Vinod Prakash, PW.6 Abdul Rauf, PW.7 Abdul Majid and PW.8 Vinod Prakash Jain. In rebuttal, defendant appellant examined herself as DW.2 and also examined DW.1 Rafiq, DW.3 Abdul Sayeed, DW.4 Abdul Majid and DW.5 Sardar Khan. Certain documents were also exhibited from both the sides. 8. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties vide impugned judgment dated 21.9.1999 decreed the suit of the plaintiff against defendant appellant for ejectment, recovery of rent and permanent injunction. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No. 1 appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 10. Certain documents were also exhibited from both the sides. 8. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties vide impugned judgment dated 21.9.1999 decreed the suit of the plaintiff against defendant appellant for ejectment, recovery of rent and permanent injunction. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No. 1 appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material and evidence available on record. 11. Shri Bihari Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 appellant has submitted that the plaintiff in her plaint has admitted that defendant No.1-appellant is tenant in the disputed premises from May, 1987 but no specific date has been mentioned. Defendant No. 1 appellant in his written statement has specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Neither any issue was framed nor any finding was given by the trial court in this regard that there has been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. Despite this, the learned trial court has passed the decree of ejectment which is perverse and illegal. Shri Agarwal further contended that as per the case of plaintiff-respondent No.1 the disputed premises was rented out to him by defendant No. 2 but to prove this fact, she has not examined Rahmatullah, defendant No.2. It is submitted that the plaintiff respondent has averred in the plaint that defendant No. 1 appellant is tenant in the suit property since 1987 whereas PW.1 Aminuddin in his statement has admitted that the defendant appellant was tenant in the premises since 1986. Therefore, the plaintiff respondent has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Lastly, Shri Agarwal has submitted that without evidence the averments made in the plaint cannot be said to be proved and the decree of ejectment can be granted only when the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved. In support of his submissions, Shri Agarwal has placed reliance on the judgments published in 1986 RLW 618 : (2006) 5 SCC 532 . 12. Per contra, Shri Ajit Bhandari, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has contended that although the trial court did not frame any issue regarding the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' between the parties, both the parties have produced evidence in this regard and the learned trial court has recorded finding in this respect. 12. Per contra, Shri Ajit Bhandari, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has contended that although the trial court did not frame any issue regarding the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' between the parties, both the parties have produced evidence in this regard and the learned trial court has recorded finding in this respect. In such a situation, neither the finding of the trial court can be termed as perverse nor the matter is required to be remanded back to the trial court. Shri Bhandari then contended that the plaintiff has not only based his case on the basis of tenancy but in the alternative he has claimed decree for possession on the basis of his ownership for which sufficient court fees has been paid. He further contended that before filing the present suit, defendant No. 2 sent a notice to defendant No. 1 appellant mentioning therein in specific terms that the defendant No. 1 appellant is in possession of the premises in question in the capacity of a 'tenant'. Defendant No.1 appellant neither replied to the notice nor disputed this fact. In support of his submissions, Shri Bhandari has placed reliance on the following judgments : AIR 1963 SC 884 , AIR 1988 SC 396 , (1992) 2 SCC 51 , 1986 RLR 623, 2005 (2) WLC 183, 2003 (1) RLR 425 , (1999) 3 SCC 161 , (2005) 12 SCC 351 , (2011) 15 SCC 300 , 2006 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1433 and AIR 2007 SC 1753 . 13. Shri Bihari Lal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No. 1 appellant in reply to the said submissions has contended that it is not in dispute that the trial court can decide any dispute in relation to which no issue has been framed but the parties have led evidence in regard to that dispute. Referring to the law laid down in the judgment of the Larger Bench reported in 1986 RLR 623, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the observation made by the Larger Bench in para No. 17, this case does not help the plaintiff as in that case it has been held that in the suit based on the relationship of landlord and tenant, neither the issue regarding ownership can be investigated nor the suit can be converted into a suit for declaration of title. Before discussing on the findings of the learned trial Court, for the purpose of adjudicating the present case, I would like to discuss the case law cited by both the parties. 14. In Bhogadi Kannababu and Others v. Vuggina Pydamma and others, 2006 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 303 : (2006) 5 SCC 538 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as follows:- "In this connection, we may also point out that in an eviction petition filed on the ground of sub-letting and default, the court needs to decide whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists and not the question of title to the properties in question, which may be incidentally gone into, but cannot be decided finally in the eviction proceeding." 15. In T. Bheem Reddy & Anr. Versus. P Laxmi Bai & Ors. learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed as follows:- "35. It is argued that mere pleading without any evidence has no value and that when a party does not appear into the witness box, averments made by such party have no value. The learned counsel has also relied on Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 (1) . It is clear that though defendant No.8 averred that the suit schedule property is Stridhana property of her mother she has not entered into the witness box, therefore, mere averment is of no use." 16. In Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 (SC) 884 the Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows : "No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mis-trial which vitiates proceedings. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion. Neither party claimed before us that it had any further evidence to offer. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion. Neither party claimed before us that it had any further evidence to offer. We, therefore, proceed to consider the central point in the case, to which we have amply referred already." 17. In Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta 1988 (1) SCC 383 the Apex Court has observed as follows : "The respondent's counsel submitted that since no issue has been raised on the question of alternative accommodation being available, the appeal may be remanded to the Appellate Court for evidence being taken and a finding rendered on the question whether the house in Ismail Madan Lane would meet the requirement of the appellant. We do not find any merit in this submission. Though formally no issue was framed, the parties went to trial and adduced evidence with this issue in mind and have drawn the attention of the Court to the existence of another house belonging to the appellant in Ismail Madan Lane and the said house being not vacant. There is, therefore, no need for the appeal being remanded for a finding on the question whether alternate suitable accommodation is available for the appellant." 18. In Kewal Krishan and Others v. Dina Nath, (1992) 2 SCC 52 the Apex Court has observed as follows: "The High Court in second appeal reversed that decision and set aside the order of eviction on the only ground that no specific issue was framed requiring proof of default in payment of rent which was a ground for eviction. This gives rise to the present appeal. The question of framing an issue for inquiring into this fact which would be deemed to be admitted on the ground of non-traverse by the respondent did not, therefore, arise. Learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously urged before us that the respondent tenant is entitled to the protection of Section 12(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops, Rent Control Act, 1966 and that the respondent had in fact deposited arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 12(i) of the Act." 19. Learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously urged before us that the respondent tenant is entitled to the protection of Section 12(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops, Rent Control Act, 1966 and that the respondent had in fact deposited arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 12(i) of the Act." 19. A Larger Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Lal Rawat, 1986 RLR 626 has in paragraph Nos. 11, 14 and 16 observed as follows : "11. There can be no manner of doubt that where a suit for ejectment is filed on the basis of tenancy and relationship of landlord and tenant, then such suit should not be converted into a title suit based on ownership and the controversy should be decided on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant only. But in the present case a plea that plaintiff is not the owner and she herself was the owner of the suit premises. Not only that an issue was also framed in this regard and both the parties led evidence and after the decision of such issue having gone against the defendant by the trial Court, the defendant has raised an objection that the issue of title should not have been decided in the present suit which was based on tenancy and relationship of land lord and tenant alone. We have gone through all the cases on which reliance is placed by Mr. Lodha and in none of these cases, the facts were identical to the case in hand before us. There is no case cited by Mr. Lodha in which after a plea taken in the written statement that plaintiff was not the owner but defendant was the owner and thereafter issue having been framed and parties having led evidence and having taken a decision on such issue, may have raised an objection in appeal that question of title could not have been decided in a suit based on tenancy. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to discuss every case cited by Mr. Lodha in detail. 14. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to discuss every case cited by Mr. Lodha in detail. 14. There can be no manner of dispute that in a suit for eviction on the basis of tenancy, all that need be gone into is whether there is a contract of tenancy between the parties and if the plaintiff fails to prove such contract of tenancy, then the court is entitled to dismiss such suit. But in a case where the question of title has also been gone into and the parties were at issue on the point of title and the parties had led evidence, it would not be just and proper to direct the plaintiff to file another suit for possession on the basis of title. Law Courts always discourage and abhore the multiplicity of suits. The only relevant circumstance in such a case would be whether any prejudice has been occasioned to the other side. 16. Our answer, therefore, to the questions referred is : (1) In a suit based on the relationship between the landlord and tenant, making prayer for eviction on the grounds set forth under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, a decree for possession can be granted in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of his title." 20. In Ram Chandra Sharma & Another v. Smt. Veera Saini, 2005 (2) WLC (Raj.) 183 learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as follows : "Rule 24 C.RC. provides that where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resetting the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds. In the instant case either party did not make any prayer that some additional issue should be framed or additional evidence is required and for that the case should be remanded to the Trial Court. The evidence of both the parties was available on the record and the points which require consideration according to the First Appellate Court should have been decided on the basis of he evidence available on the record. The evidence of both the parties was available on the record and the points which require consideration according to the First Appellate Court should have been decided on the basis of he evidence available on the record. According to learned counsel for the appellants, there are pleadings and the evidence of both the parties covering all the three points which required afresh consideration according to the First Appellate Court. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Purushottam Reddy and Another's case (supra), is fully applicable in the instant case." 21. In Giarassa v. Board of Revenue & Ors. 2003 (1) RLR 429 , learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as follows: "I have also carefully scanned the judgments referred before me by learned counsel for the petitioner wherein the Supreme Court as well as this High Court has held that where the evidence upon record is sufficient to enable the appellate Court to pronounce Judgment the appellate Court may, after resetting the Issues, is necessary, finally determine the suit notwithstanding that the judgment of the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some grounds other than on which the appellate Court proceeds." 22. In Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 161 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under:- "8. In our view, the High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under Order 41, Rule 23 CPC to the lower court merely because it considered that the reasoning of the lower court in some respects was wrong. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the parties to the case. When the material was available before the High Court, It should have itself decided the aspects of the case mentioned in the order of the trial court and considered whether the order of the trial court ought to be confirmed or reversed or modified." 23. In Rajinder Sharma v. Arpana Sharma, (2011) 15 SCC 301 the Apex Court has observed as follows: "5. It appears that most of the documents which are sought to be adduced by way of adducing evidence are on record. In that view of the matter, the order to remit the matter to the trial Court is not warranted. In Rajinder Sharma v. Arpana Sharma, (2011) 15 SCC 301 the Apex Court has observed as follows: "5. It appears that most of the documents which are sought to be adduced by way of adducing evidence are on record. In that view of the matter, the order to remit the matter to the trial Court is not warranted. The High Court, being the first appellate Court, is a Court of both fact and law. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice for the High Court to decide the controversy in accordance with law. In the facts of the case the order of remand will merely prolong the proceedings between the parties." 24. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case law cited at the bar. 25. In my opinion, in this appeal the following questions arise for consideration by this Court:- 1. Whether the finding of the learned trial court that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff respondent and the defendant appellant has been established, is based on the evidence and documents available on record? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case if it is not found proved that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties then on the basis of ownership of plaintiff-respondent, a decree of possession can be passed or the case is to be remanded back to the trial court? 26. It is not in dispute that regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, no issue has been framed and after considering the evidence available on record it is clear that both the parties have led evidence on this issue and the learned trial court has also recorded a finding in this regard, therefore, in the light of the law cited before this Court, I am of the view that in absence of specific issue regarding relationship of 'landlord and tenant' the case can be decided. 27. So far as the question No. (1) is concerned, plaintiff-respondent has averred in the plaint that defendant No.2-respondent had disclosed her that he is tenant in the disputed promises since 1987 on monthly rent of Rs. 550/- and had paid the rent to defendant No. 2 up to the month of September, 1991 but defendant No. 1 appellant in his reply has specifically denied this fact. 550/- and had paid the rent to defendant No. 2 up to the month of September, 1991 but defendant No. 1 appellant in his reply has specifically denied this fact. In this respect, in his written statement submitted by defendant No. 2 respondent has averred that in the notice given on his behalf to defendant No. 1 - appellant mistakenly in place of 1986, the year 1987 was mentioned, whereas the defendant-appellant was tenant from 1986. Aminuddin PW.1 in his evidence has stated that defendant No. 2 disclosed him that he had let out the disputed property to appellant-defendant in the month of may, 1987 on monthly rent of Rs. 550/- and he made payment of rent up to September, 1991. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that Hafizan was living in the house since 1986. There is no evidence available on record to prove that defendant No. 1 - appellant made payment of rent to defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 1 - appellant was in possession of the disputed premises in the capacity of a tenant. The evidence led by defendant-appellant reveals that he had never accepted this fact that he is in possession of the disputed premises in the capacity of a tenant. Admittedly, in the present case neither any rent deed nor any rent receipt has been produced on record. It is pertinent to note that in the registered sale-deed Ex.2 executed by defendant No. 2- respondent in favour of plaintiff-respondent on 4.10.1993 no such fact finds place that the defendant No.1 - appellant is in possession over the disputed premises in the capacity of a tenant rather it has been mentioned that "it will be the responsibility of the purchaser to evict whosoever is in possession thereof. If the defendant No. 1 - appellant was a tenant in the disputed premises at monthly rent of Rs. 550/-, I am of the view that such fact would have been there in the registered sale-deed Ex.2. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial court, while deciding issue No. 2 has observed that defendant No. 2 in his written statement has supported the averments mode in the plaint by the plaintiff. 550/-, I am of the view that such fact would have been there in the registered sale-deed Ex.2. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial court, while deciding issue No. 2 has observed that defendant No. 2 in his written statement has supported the averments mode in the plaint by the plaintiff. If the defendant No. 1 appellant was not a tenant and was owner of the premises, he would have taken steps for cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 26.11.1993 but the defendant No. 1 - appellant neither initiated such proceedings nor responded to the notice of defendant No.2- respondent on basis of this, the learned trial court has declared the defendant-appellant as a tenant. I am of the opinion that this finding of the learned trial court is perverse. To prove the fact that the defendant No.1- appellant was a tenant in the disputed premises burden lies upon plaintiff-respondent No.1. Upon careful consideration of the evidence of the parties this Court finds that there is no such evidence available on record on basis of which it can be inferred that the defendant No.1-appellant that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in her plaint averred that defendant No.2-respondent had disclosed her that defendant-appellant is a tenant in the premises since May, 1987. This fact was specifically in the knowledge of defendant-respondent No.2 but he was not examined as a witness. On the basis of the discussions made herein above, question No. (i) Is decided in the manner that the finding of the learned trial court on the issue that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not based on evidence. 28. So far as question No. (2) is concerned, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in her plaint has pleaded that she had purchased the premises in question from defendant-respondent No.2 for a total consideration of Rs. 80,000/- through a registered sale-deed dated 4.10.1993. In this regard, she proved the registered sale-deed as Ex.2. In addition to it in this regard in the plaint it is averred that defendant respondent No. 2 purchased the said property on 11.11.1967 from Rafiq Khan @ Mohammad Rafiq son of Bundu Khan and in support of his averment she produced and got exhibited sale-deed Ex.4. In this regard, she proved the registered sale-deed as Ex.2. In addition to it in this regard in the plaint it is averred that defendant respondent No. 2 purchased the said property on 11.11.1967 from Rafiq Khan @ Mohammad Rafiq son of Bundu Khan and in support of his averment she produced and got exhibited sale-deed Ex.4. Defendant No.1- appellant in his written statement himself has admitted that the erstwhile owner of the property was Rafiq Khan @ Mohammad Rafiq son of Bundu Khan who sold the same to defendant No. 2 respondent through sale deed Ex.4. In this manner, the plaintiff-respondent has proved her ownership of the property. Defendant No.1-appellant in his written statement has mentioned that his mother Hafizan had purchased the disputed property from Rafiq @ Mohammad Rafiq S/o Bundu Khan through defendant No. 2 respondent but in the written statement neither such averment has been made that how and on which date and year Hafizan had purchased the disputed property from erstwhile owner nor defendant No.1-appellant has been able to prove this fact. DW-1 Rafiq in his evidence has admitted that he does not know for what amount the property was purchased and that he has no knowledge whether the sale-deed was registered or not. He never saw any registered sale-deed with his mother. He also does not know how much amount his mother paid. He has also stated that he had no knowledge that Rafiq Khan purchased the disputed property through sale-deed Ex.4. 29. Exs. 18 and 19 are the entries of House Tax wherein Babu @ Mehboob Khan, father of defendant No. 2 has been shown as the owner of the property. In this manner, defendant No. 1 has not been able to prove his ownership over the property in dispute. 30. Regarding ownership of the property, the learned trial court though framed issue No. 1 and has decided the same in favour of respondent No. 1 but during the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to show that the finding of the learned trial court on this issue is perverse and illegal or is contrary to the evidence available on record. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the alternative has sought for a decree for possession on the basis of ownership in case the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' Is not established. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the alternative has sought for a decree for possession on the basis of ownership in case the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' Is not established. Regarding this, the learned trial court has framed issue No. 8 and has decided this issue by the impugned judgment and decree in the manner that since the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has been able to prove her ownership over the property in dispute and letting out the same on rent to defendant-appellant, there is no necessity for passing decree of possession on the alternative ground of ownership. As has been observed herein above, though the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' between the parties could not be proved, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is entitled for a decree of possession on the basis of ownership. Similarly the amount which has been decided and decreed to be paid as arrears of rent shall be taken to have been granted as mesne profit. Therefore, albeit for different reasons to those stated in the impugned judgment, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court are upheld. 31. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed.