Short Note : 1. I need not go into details with regard to the facts of the case except mentioning that the suit was between the landlord and tenant Kedarnath who is appellant No.1 here. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit in entirety while the lower appellate Court on appeal by the plaintiff partly allowed the same It dismissed the suit so far as it related to ejectment but decree it for arrears of rent against Kedarnath (appellant No.1 alone). Hence this second appeal by defendants. Held : The only contention that was raised before me by the learned counsel was that the lower appellate Court was not right in balding that the appellant No.1 Kedarnath was tenant of the respondent on the strength of rent-note (Ex P-1). In my opinion the finding in that regard is correct as the said Court held on the appreciation of the evidence on record that (Ex P-1) relates to the suit house and, therefore, it was conclusively established that Kedarnath was tenant of the suit accommodation of which respondent was the landlord That being so there is no substance in the contention. But the learned counsel further brought to my notice that the lower appellate Court in its judgment adverted itself to the question of title to the suit property as well. Any way, it is now well settled that in the case of landlord and tenant the question of determination of title does not arise The Case was to be decided on the point whether relationship of landlord and tenant has been established or not. In that view of the matter even if some observations might have appeared in the judgment of that Court that would not in any manner affect the title. Appeal dismissed.