executed in writing. The tenancy was allegedly oral. The plaintiff had been paying monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The oral tenancy was created in February 2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff had been paying rent to the defendant regularly. The plaintiff had also been paying electricity bills. His Voter Id-Card and ration card bear the address of the suit property. The Courts below dismissed the suit holding that tenancy was not proved. Rather, the plaintiff while appearing as PW-1, has admitted that there was no writing between him and the defendant regarding the user of the house and the payment of rent. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that no receipt in respect of payment of rent was obtained by him from the defendant. He was allowed to stay in the suit property due to trust reposed by the defendant and on account of their relationship. Santokh Singh, PW-2, has also admitted that the defendant had allowed the plaintiff to use the house in dispute due to the relationship and no writing was effected regarding any payment. The plaintiff had agreed in his presence regarding stopping the user of the house whenever required by the defendant. Keeping in view the evidence led by the plaintiff, the Courts below returned a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his tenancy over the suit land. Rather the evidence went on to show that the possession of the plaintiff was in the nature of licence. The stand of the plaintiff before the Court below is that of tenant. The contention
