P.N. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a simple suit for rent. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below, and the Defendant is the Appellant before me.
(2.) The defence was that the suit tenancy had no existence but that there was a bigger tenancy of which the Defendant was a co-sharer. The Plaintiff's case was that this bigger tenancy had been subdivided according to law and, as a result of this subdivision and subsequent events, the suit tenancy came into existence between the parties.
(3.) In proof of the plea of subdivision of the original tenancy, the Plaintiff led evidence, oral and documentary. The documentary evidence epmprised inter alia, Ex. 6, consisting of the application for subdivision by the tenants and the sanction, recorded thereon on the landlord's behalf. The courts below, as I have already said, accepted the Plaintiff's case and granted him a decree for rent as claimed in the plaint.;