JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is made by the original plaintiff to the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and mesne profit before the trail Court. The Civil Judge (S.D.) Valsad, vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.1997, dismissed the said suit being Special Civil Suit No.78 of 1993. The said judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the original plaintiff, initially before the High Court by filing First Appeal No.2544 of 1997, however with the change in the jurisdiction, the said appeal got transferred to the District Court, Valsad and was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.103 of 2005. The Additional District Judge, Valsad dismissed the said appeal vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.2010. It is this judgment and decree, which is challenged by the original plaintiff in this second appeal before this Court. 2. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant – original plaintiff has submitted that, the appellant – original plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The sale deed, pursuant to which he got title over the suit property, was on record at Exh.66 and index thereof was at Exh.67. It is submitted that the respondent was permitted gratuitously by the plaintiff to continue his profession in the said premises. It is submitted that when he was asked to vacate the premises, he refused and therefore the suit for injunction and allied relief was filed. It is submitted that though the defendant had claimed his status as a tenant vis-a-vis the present appellant, qua the suit property, there was no evidence on record in that regard. It is submitted that both the Courts below fell in error on this material aspect, while reading the evidence on record. Attention of this Court is invited to the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.B. Antani) to contend that the following substantial questions of law are already framed and the same be answered in favour of the appellant. “(A) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law by misreading and misconstruing the evidence on record while passing the impugned judgments, order and decree ? Justice H.B. Antani) to contend that the following substantial questions of law are already framed and the same be answered in favour of the appellant. “(A) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law by misreading and misconstruing the evidence on record while passing the impugned judgments, order and decree ? (B) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that the defendants are tenants of the suit property, more particularly because the trial Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the said issue ? (C) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in relying on so-called admission of father of the appellant in another suit being Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1970 ? ” It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that this appeal be allowed and the injunction as prayed for against the respondents be granted. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the original defendant – present respondents has vehemently opposed this appeal. It is submitted that there is concurrent findings of both the Courts below and this Court may not interfere in it. It is submitted that the Court has very little play in the second appeal in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and on the basis of the findings of two Courts below, this appeal be dismissed. It is submitted that the substantial questions of law as framed by this Court, be answered against the appellant and in favour of the present respondents. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, having considered the material on record and having perused the Record and Proceedings of the Courts below, this Court finds as under: 4.1 It is not in dispute that the suit property is owned by the present appellant – original plaintiff. The title, in the form of the registered sale deed and index thereof was on record at Exh.66 and 67 respectively. This Court has considered the same. 4.2 It was asserted by the present respondent – original defendant that he was tenant of the said property. No document was on record, even one, to point out that the present respondent was tenant of the suit property, qua the ownership of the present plaintiff. This Court has considered the same. 4.2 It was asserted by the present respondent – original defendant that he was tenant of the said property. No document was on record, even one, to point out that the present respondent was tenant of the suit property, qua the ownership of the present plaintiff. 4.3 The trial Court rejected the suit principally on the ground that, the suit property - which is a shop, was initially taken on rent from the erstwhile owner, jointly by the present plaintiff and the defendant (father of the plaintiff and father of the defendant) and they continued in possession. The Trial Court noted that, the original landlord (from whom the property was purchased by the present plaintiff vide Exh.66) had instituted a suit in the year 1970 being Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1970, in which the present plaintiff conceded that the present plaintiff and present defendant both were tenants of the suit property. The trial Court held that, on the basis of the said admission, the present defendant could not be termed to be in unauthorised possession of the suit property. 4.4 This Court finds that, so far the suit is concerned, the present plaintiff – Shahbudeen Ishabhai Nurani Khoja was the sole tenant vis-a-vis the erstwhile owner. In the Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1970 also, the plaintiff therein – the landlord viz., Hormasji Dinshaji identified Ishabhai Hasanbhai ( i.e. the father of the present plaintiff) as the sole tenant and was therefore joined as the sole defendant. Thus so far the rights of the parties – Hormasji Dinshaji identified Ishabhai Hasanbhai (i.e. the father of the present plaintiff) is concerned, it is only these two, who were standing as owner vis-a-vis tenant. The pleadings in the suit of the year 1970, can not be a ground for the Courts below, to hold that, the present defendant was tenant of the suit property. There was additional reason not to do so. On the face of the sale deed (Exh.66) of the year 1992, the present defendant could not have been accepted as a tenant qua the suit property vis-a-vis the present plaintiff. This is an additional reason to hold that, the Courts below fell in error inasmuch as there was misreading of evidence and perversity while recording conclusion. On the face of the sale deed (Exh.66) of the year 1992, the present defendant could not have been accepted as a tenant qua the suit property vis-a-vis the present plaintiff. This is an additional reason to hold that, the Courts below fell in error inasmuch as there was misreading of evidence and perversity while recording conclusion. 4.5 It is a matter of record that, issue Nos.3 and 4 as framed by the Trial Court were as under. “3. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the tenant of the suit property? [In Affirmative] 4. Whether defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? [In Negative]” 4.6 The above would show that, contradictory findings are recorded by the Trial Court. When the defendant asserted his right as a tenant, the protection as prayed for by him, could have been granted by the competent Court. But for that purpose, it was for him (present defendant) to initiate appropriate proceedings. At this stage, reference needs to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2012 SC 1727 (1) - Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs. As per the said decision, once the title holder seeks possession from any person and if that possession is resisted by any party, it is for the person who resists the possession to claim and prove before the competent Court as to why he should be continued in possession at all. In the present case, there is no attempt by the present defendant. The issue of jurisdiction framed at the instance of the present defendant, is also answered against him. The trial Court could not have granted any protection in favour of the present defendant, as a tenant, since it did not have jurisdiction. The plaintiff did not acknowledge the defendant as the tenant. If the defendant wanted it to be decided, he could have moved the competent Court, which, as noted above, he did not. The defendant could not have been thrust upon the plaintiff as his tenant. The dispute is of the year 1994. At this belated stage, to ask the parties to move the Courts below again, would be miscarriage of justice. 5. In totality, this Court finds that, the trial Court so also the Appellate Court below misread the evidence on record. The defendant could not have been thrust upon the plaintiff as his tenant. The dispute is of the year 1994. At this belated stage, to ask the parties to move the Courts below again, would be miscarriage of justice. 5. In totality, this Court finds that, the trial Court so also the Appellate Court below misread the evidence on record. The judgments also suffer from the vice of perversity. Perversity to the extent that, irrelevant aspect is taken into consideration and relevant is not taken into consideration. The consideration of irrelevant aspect is that, the pleadings by the sole defendant of Regular Civil Suit no.18 of 1970 could not have been taken into consideration, which is accepted as a proved document in favour of the present defendant. That part needs to be excluded. Further, the trial Court did not properly take into consideration the fact that the present appellant – original plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. Though this fact is referred to by it, it should have been weighed in favour of the present appellant and once the title was established by the plaintiff, if the defendant was asserting his possession in any manner, that fact was required to be proved by him. This aspect is not properly considered by the Court. The errors, in which the Courts below fell in this case, are such which can be and which need to be corrected by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus, on overall consideration, this Court finds that the substantial questions of law as framed by this Court need to be answered in favour of the present appellant and are accordingly answered as under: 5.1 It is held that, both the Courts below fell in error of law by misreading and misconstruing the evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment, order and decree. 5.2 It is held that both the Courts below also committed error of law in holding that the defendants are tenants of the suit property. 5.3 It is held that, both the Courts below committed error of law in relying on so-called admission of father of the appellant in another suit being Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1970. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 6.1 This appeal is allowed. 5.3 It is held that, both the Courts below committed error of law in relying on so-called admission of father of the appellant in another suit being Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1970. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 6.1 This appeal is allowed. 6.2 The judgment and decree of both the Courts below are quashed and set aside. 6.3 The Special Civil Suit No.78 of 1993 filed by the present appellant - plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Valsad is partly allowed. 6.4 The relief regarding permanent injunction against the defendants, as prayed for in para 8 (1) & (2) of the plaint is granted. 6.5 The relief qua recovery of mesne profit from the defendants, as prayed for in para: 8 (3) of the plaint is rejected. 6.6 Prayer clause 8(4) of the plaint is formal prayer and 8(5) is for costs. No order is passed in that regard. 6.7 The Special Civil Suit No.78 of 1993 filed by the present appellant - plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Valsad is thus partly allowed in terms of Para : 8 (1) & (2) of the plaint. 6.8 Decree be drawn accordingly. 6.9 Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. 7. At this stage, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondents – original defendants has requested that this judgment be stayed for some reasonable time. This request is rejected. However, with a view to see that, challenge if any, by the present respondents to this judgment remains meaningful, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be initiated by the appellant against the respondents, on the basis of this judgment, till 31.03.2020.