JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. – Vakalatnama as well as the Caveat Application filed by Sri Mahesh Chand Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondent-caveator, are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mahesh Chand Sharma, learned counsel for respondent-caveator and perused the record. 3. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2013, (Sultan Khan and others v. Shivaji Maharaj Virajman Sri Shiv Mandir, Loni, Ghaziabad through Sri Suresh Chandra Pradhan, Prabandh Samiti Shiv Mandir) arising out of judgment and order dated 16.3.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Civil Suit No. 1235 of 1995 Shivaji Maharaj Virajman Sri Shiv Mandir, Loni, Ghaziabad through Sri Suresh Chandra Pradhan, Prabandh Samiti Shiv Mandir v. Sultan Khan). 4. The brief facts relating to the case are that the respondent filed Civil Suit No.1235 of 1995 against Sultan Khan for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction over the land in question with the averments that the open piece of land was given in the tenancy to defendant Sultan Khan at a rent of Rs. 20/- per month by the plaintiff over which, the defendant without permission of plaintiff put a Khokha, of which he had no right and since the property in suit is an open piece of land, the provision of Act XIII of 1972, are not applicable. It was also contended that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1.4.1989 to 31.7.1993 and he was served with a notice dated 24.8.1993 terminating his tenancy, which was duly served on him on 6.9.1993, but he neither vacated the property in suit nor made payment of arrears of rent, so suit for eviction was filed. It was also contended that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1.4.1989 to 31.7.1993 and he was served with a notice dated 24.8.1993 terminating his tenancy, which was duly served on him on 6.9.1993, but he neither vacated the property in suit nor made payment of arrears of rent, so suit for eviction was filed. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint's allegations with the contention that Nagar Panchayat, Loni, is the owner of the property in suit, which was lying vacant since abolition of Zamidari and when town area committee was constituted in 1971, it vested in it; that the plaintiff has taken over possession in excess of the land of Mandir and has been unauthorised recovering the rent from the defendant as stated in para 20 of the written statement, which is as under : - ^^20- ;g fd Vkmu ,sfj;k desVh ykSuh dh Hkwfe ij uktk;t rkSj o rjhds ls f'ko efUnj dh dfFkr izcU/kd lfefr ds eqBenZ fdLe ds fxjksgcUn vkneh;ksa us tcju dCtk fd;k gqvk gS vkSj Mjk /kedk dj voS/k :i ls fdjk;k crkdj vHkh rd mRrjnkrk ls Hkh : i;k olwy djrs pys vk jgs gSaA ,sls gkykr esa oknh dks dksbZ dkj.k okn vius dks ekfyd Hkwfe fookfnr ?kksf"kr djkus ls iwoZ ugha FkkA** 5. The trial court after recording the evidences of parties, decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent as well as ejectment of the defendant. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2013 before the District Judge, which has been dismissed with costs by the impugned judgment and decree. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant as regard to the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal is that the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove his title over the property in suit and did not produce even a single rent receipt in the court below; that since the Nagar Panchayat, Loni had served one Jauhari, with a notice for eviction, who also claimed his tenant by the plaintiff proves that the title of property in suit vested in Nagar Panchayat, Loni and not in plaintiff. He further contended that the plaintiff used to receive donation from the defendant and claims to have accepted it as rent. He further contended that the plaintiff used to receive donation from the defendant and claims to have accepted it as rent. He further contended that the learned lower courts have acted wrongly in relying on the case law given by the Apex Court in the case of D. Satyajanarayana v. P. Jagadish, 1987(4) SCC 424 as the case of defendant-appellant is on different facts. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that it has been specifically mentioned by appellant in the written statement that the rent was recovered from him by plaintiff, so the new contention beyond pleadings raised by the defendant-appellant for the first in this appeal, that the money was recovered from him towards donation and accepted as rent, has no force and may not be accepted. As far as, the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, it is well established from the evidence on record and no perversity in the concurrent findings of two courts below has been pointed out. Moreover the defendant appellant does not claim that the Nagar Panchayat, Loni claiming ownership, served him with any notice of eviction, and so the alleged notice, if any, served by Nagar Panchayat, Loni to another person Jauhari in respect of property other than the property in suit, may be of no use of defendant-appellant. The concurrent findings of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and other findings are of findings of fact which may not be interfered by this Court in second appeal in absence of any manifest error or perversity. The learned counsel for appellant has failed to show that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 8. In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 9. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.