P.K. Palli, J.—The plaintiff having lost in both the courts below is in second appeal before this Court. Parties here-in-after in this judgment shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

2. The plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration on the ground that he is a tenant in respect of flat No. 254 in Cecil Annexe, Shimla and the orders passed against one Mrs. K.R. Erry or Mr. I.K. Erry in respect of the flat are illegal and not binding on him. He claims himself to be the grand-son of Mrs. K.R. Erry who is alleged to be a tenant at one point of time. It was on her asking that the defendant had agreed to induct the plaintiff as tenant in the said flat at Rs. 250/- p.m. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been wrongly issuing rent receipts in the name of Mrs. K.R. Erry till her death. Plaintiff thus claims that Mrs. K.R. Erry had nothing to do with the flat and the entry to that extent is a mere formality.

3. Strangely, the plaintiff further states that in case it is found that he was not inducted as a tenant, he should be treated as a tenant by way of adverse possession. This possession, according to him, is open and hostile to the knowledge