1. This is a suit for rent. The main defence is that the tenant was not put in possession of the properties leased to him and is not, therefore, liable for payment of rent.
2. The first Court decreed the suit but the decree was reversed by the lower Appellate Court and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff appeals. On his behalf it is urged that the facts found do not justify the dismissal of the suit. This contention cannot prevail.
3. Having regard to proviso 3 of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, it was open to the learned Subordinate Judge to find that the ijara patta was intended to be operative only in the event of the lessee being able to obtain possession of the leasehold property and that such possession was a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the lease upon which the present suit is based. This is what he has found and with that finding we cannot interfere.
4. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.