Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - Both the civil revisions are at the instance of the tenants challenging the order of the appellate authority directing the eviction. They had been contending that the respective relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established and that the findings rendered were erroneous.

2. In both the above cases, the landlord was the same person. They were in relation to adjacent shops. In respect of the property, which is the subject of CR No.3676 of 1989, the landlord Dr. Rewa Ram contended that he had rented the shop in dispute to Maghar Singh described as the 1st respondent on monthly rent of Rs.20/- on 04.04.1952 through rent note executed by him in favour of the landlord. He contended that the 1st respondent continued till 1967-68 upto which time the tenant had been paying the rent without any demur. He had ceased to occupy the shop since 1968 and had unauthorizedly allowed to respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Karam Singh and Jeet Singh to occupy the property. The 1st respondent – Maghar Singh contended that he had never been in occupation of the property under the rent note but it was in the occupation of his father Karam Singh the 2nd respondent,