RAJINDAR SACHAR, J. - (1.)THE plaintiff respondent -landlords filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant -tenant -defendant on the ground that he was their tenant and has not paid rent and was in arrears of rent from July 1, 1960 to May 31, 1963 The appellant denied the allegation and maintained that be was not tenant of the plaintiffs. He also denied that he was in arrears of rent.
(2.)THE lower court, by its judgment dated May 27, 1966, negative the plea of the appellant and held that the plaintiffs are the landlords. He also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to arrears of rent from July 1, 1860 to May 31, 1963, and thereafter, mesne profits from June 1, 1963 to the date of the institution of the suit He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. Aggrieved against that, the tenant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, who accepted the plea of the tenant in so far as the eviction was concerned and eel aside the trial court's decree in so far as it has decreed eviction against the tenant. It has however affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court on the other ground, namely, decreeing of arrears of rent. The tenant has come tip to this Court in second appeal.
The plea of the tenant was that the plaintiffs were not his landlord. According to the tenant Anandmal, who is a younger brother of Panmal plaintiff and the son of Sethani Mohan Kanwar, the other plaintiff (since deceased), was his landlord. The lower appellate court has noted that the property in dispute originally belonged to Kanmal Lodha, the father of Panmal and Anandmal and husband of Mohan Kanwar and that the property is joint and that it is no body's case that the same has been partitioned. The lower appellate court has noted that though, originally, the plaintiffs have taken the stand that the defendant was not their tenant when they served notice Ex. A/1 in 1960, they bad subsequently recognised the defendant as their tenant and thus the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has come into being. There is no evidence on the record to show that Anandmal was the plea owner. No rent deed from Anandmal was proved. It, therefore, negatived the plea that Anandmal was the landlord of the defendant, and held that the plaintiffs were competent to file the suit. Both the courts below have thus come to a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs were the landlords and were therefore competent to maintain the suit.

(3.)AS far as the arrears of rent was concerned, no evidence was led by the defendant to show that he had paid rent for the period to the plaintiff. Indeed, be could not do so in view of the circumstances that be bad taken the stand that the plaintiffs were not his landlords. The finding therefore that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover rent from the appellant also, does not suffer from any infirmity and bat to be upheld.
;