JUDGMENT : A. K. Rath, J - Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment. 2. Plaintiff-Respondent instituted the suit for eviction and realization of arrear rent. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the owner of the suit house. The same was let out to the defendant in February, 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent from April, 1981. Notice was issued to the defendant to vacate the house. The defendant maintained a sphinx like silence. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant was that the ex-landlord leased out the land in favour of his father and issued raiyati patta. Thereafter his father constructed shop rooms. The shop rooms were let out to the plaintiff on rent. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court decreed the suit holding inter alia that the defendant was a monthly tenant. He defaulted in payment of rent. Felt aggrieved, the defendant filed T.A. No.78/317 of 1987 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the second appeal, the sole respondent died. The legal heirs have been substituted. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.3, 4 and 8 of the appeal memo. The same are: "3. Whether in view of the fact that C.S. Plot No.335 was bifurcated to various plots that is Plot No.3559, 230/3559 and plaintiff's case being that he had purchased plot No.3559 it should have been held that plaintiff has no claim in respect of plot No.230/3559 ? 4. Whether the sale deed Ext.8 has been misconstrued, Ext.A is the certified copy of the sale deed, Ext.8 where only plot no.3559 has been mentioned and there has been interpolation after registration as is apparent and the learned forum below has taken a peculiar view of the matter to the effect that there is every chance of omission at the time of copying in the copying department. Without directing any enquiry into the matter observations in this respect are based upon surmises and conjectures. 8. Whether in view of the fact that the plaintiff had filed the suit in respect of Ac.0.02 decimals appertaining to plot no.335 under Khata No.900 and P.W.I has stated at evidence that M.S. Plot No.335 corresponds to C.S. Khata No.1030, C.S. Plot No.230/3559, which does not find place in Ext.8 and the fact that C.S. Plot No.230/3559 was not purchased by the plaintiff, are the forums below right in having disposed of issue no.3 in an arbitrary manner and are the findings on that issue based upon surmises and conjectures." 6. Mr. B.C. Swain, learned Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submits that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit house. The suit land originally belonged to the ex-landlord. The ex-landlord granted raiyati patta in favour of the father of the defendant, whereafter his father had constructed shop rooms. One of the shop rooms was let out to the plaintiff. The description of the suit property is indefinite and vague. Elaborating the submission, he submits that in the sale deed, Ext.8, plot no.230 had been subsequently inserted to. Plot no.335 was bifurcated to various plots. Plaintiff's case is that he had purchased plot no.3559. Thus, the plaintiff has no claim in respect of plot no.230/3559. He further submits that the unregistered lease deed, Ext.D, can be considered for co-lateral purpose. He further submits that the defendant had paid rent to the Tahasildar. 7. Per contra, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the respondents, submits that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit house. No plea had been taken by the defendant that plot no.230 had been subsequently inserted to. Both the courts concurrently held that defendant is a tenant and defaulted in payment of rent. There is no perversity in the finding of the courts below. 8. The plaintiff asserts that he has purchased the suit land appertaining to Plot No.230/3559 from Induprava and her sons by means of a registered sale deed dated 27.1.81 vide Ext.8. He constructed shop rooms over the same. On a cursory perusal of Ext.8, it is evident that the suit schedule land appertains to plot no.230/3559. The defendant has not taken the plea that plot no.230 has been subsequently inserted to. He constructed shop rooms over the same. On a cursory perusal of Ext.8, it is evident that the suit schedule land appertains to plot no.230/3559. The defendant has not taken the plea that plot no.230 has been subsequently inserted to. The sale deed has been marked as Ext.7 without objection. No petition was filed in the court below to send the sale deed to the handwriting expert. In view of the same, the courts below are perfectly justified in holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit plot. The defendant failed to substantiate his claim of title over the suit plot. Both the courts held that defendant is a tenant. This is essentially a finding of fact. There is no perversity in the same. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 9. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed