Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The defendant has concurrently lost before the two Courts below in a suit for possession by way of ejectment. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he was owner of the shop in question and the same had been given on rent to defendant- Dr. Gopinder kumar. 3. The tenancy of Dr. Gopinder Kumar had been duly terminated by serving a notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to possession. Various technical pleas were raised by the defendant. It was also claimed that the plaintiff was trying to enhance the rent of the shop. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property and that tenancy of the defendant had been terminated by the plaintiff by serving a valid notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal of the defendant failed before the learned first Appellate Court. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal dismissed.