Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.N. Upadhyaya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1989 passed by Sri Sant Lal Ram, VIth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1980 “Amar Deo Singh v. Arya Samaj, Lalganj and others”, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Munsif Haweli, Azamgarh dated 19.8.1980, (by which the Munsif had decreed Civil Suit No. 174 of 1979 of plaintiffs for injunction, eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation) dismissed the plaintiff’s suit with costs throughout. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit by the first Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal which was admitted on 21.12.1989 on following substantial question of law involved in the appeal :

“(1) whether the appellate Court was right in relying on receipt dated 10.10.1944 and reversing the findings of trial Court that the same was a forged document”

3. Again on 14.9.2010 upon application of the plaintiffs-appellants, one more substantial question of law was framed as under :

“(2) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree on the basis of title, even if relationship of landlord and tenant on which the suit was based, was not proved.”

4. brief facts relating to the present second appeal are that plaintiff No. 1 Arya Samaj, Lalganj through Secretary Girdhari Lal, plaintiff No. 2 Raj Nath Singh and plaintiff No. 3 Girdhari Lal filed a Civil Suit No. 174 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif Haweli, Azamgarh for obtaining a decree :

(a) for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the house in dispute or raising constructions thereon,

(b) for delivery of possession over the property shown by letters Ka, Kha, Sa, Da in favour of plaintiffs,

(c) for a decree of Rs. 1800/- towards arrears of rent for three years,

(d) for a decree of recovery of the damages for use and occupation, till date of delivery of possession and

(e) cost of the suit.

5. The contention made in plaint in brief is that plaintiff No. 1 is a part of an institution, registered as Arya Pratinidhi Sabha in U.P. and plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 are the main office bearers being President and Secretary; that the plaintiff No. 1 under Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. is owner in possession of house shown by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da in southern portion of which shown by letters Ka, Kha, Sa Da, the defendant is a tenant at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month; that the defendant is in arrears of rent since January, 1975 and due to non-payment of rent since considerable period, a notice was served on him terminating his tenancy, which was served on him on 5.1.1979 but neither any reply was given nor rent was paid nor the property was vacated by him rather he committed a mischief by removing the name of Arya Samaj which was ascribed with cement on the gate of property in suit, regarding which F.I.R. was also lodged in police station on 7.1.1979.

6. The defendant denied the allegations made in plaint and stated in his written statement that the plaintiffs have no right, title or concern with the property in suit and there has been no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant; that neither the defendant ever paid any rent to plaintiffs nor assured payment of alleged arrears of rent; that property in question situates in plot No. 557/1 area 190 Kadi which was obtained by his brother Basudev from Raja Jaunpur on lease on 7.10.1944 and since then the defendant and his brothers are in possession over the plot after raising constructions thereon; that neither there is any building of Arya Samaj on the spot, nor Arya Samaj was ever in occupation of property in suit, nor the name of Ar