JUDGMENT : 1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant (for brevity- ‘the defendant’) who suffers concurrent findings of facts against him vide judgement dated 26.4.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (for brevity- ‘the learned trial court’) decreeing the civil suit no.93/95, B.T. No.02/2010 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit, which has been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bandikui District Dausa (for brevity- ‘the learned appellate court’) vide its judgement and decree dated 19.10.2022 while dismissing civil regular appeal no.10/16, CIS Civil Regular Appeal No.45/2020, CNR No.RJDS060002882016. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that Smt. Kesar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents no.1/1 to 1/4 filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit against Smt. Mooli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’), the predecessor-in-interest of appellant and the proforma respondents no.2/1 to 2/3 stating therein that she was owner of the subject property comprising of two rooms and a chowk, a part of her puccaa house, let out to the defendant vide rent note dated 6.10.1992 @ Rs.200 per month. It was averred that earlier, it was on rent with Shri Ram Swaroop S/o Bhagwana and Ramesh S/o Laxmi Narayan and the defendant. It was submitted that Shri Ram Swaroop vacated it on 10.3.1992 and Ramesh on 6.10.1992 executing a document admitting therein that after its vacation by him, it was let out to the defendant, his mother. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide necessity and denial of title. 3. The defendant in her written statement denied the averments in the plaint. It was stated that she was in occupation of the subject premises as its owner. 4. The learned trial court framed nine issues including relief. The issue no.1 pertained to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 5. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit as aforesaid deciding the issue no.1, issue no.2 pertaining to default in payment of rent, issue no.3 related to reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff, issue no.4 related to denial of title, in favour of plaintiff. 5. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit as aforesaid deciding the issue no.1, issue no.2 pertaining to default in payment of rent, issue no.3 related to reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff, issue no.4 related to denial of title, in favour of plaintiff. The civil regular appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned appellate court vide its judgement and decree dated 19.10.2022. 6. Aggrieved against the judgement and decree dated 19.10.2022, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant is that findings of the learned court qua issue no.1 are perverse inasmuch as it was not appreciated that the relationship of landlord and tenant could not be established between the parties. Relying upon Ex.A9, the note sheet of the Nagar Palika Bandikui, he submits that ownership of the defendant over the subject property was well established and hence, there was no occasion for the learned courts to have decided the issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, judgement dated 19.10.2022 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. The learned appellate court as also the learned trial court have recorded a concurrent finding as to establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties appreciating and analysing the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the respective parties. The plaintiff has claimed the defendant to be her tenant on the strength of the rent note dated 6.10.1992 (Ex.2) which has been found to be proved by the learned courts. Shri Naresh (DW1), grandson of the defendant has feigned ignorance as to execution of the rent note dated 6.10.1992 by his grandmother when confronted during his cross examination. Similarly, Shri Ghasi Ram (DW2) has feigned ignorance as to whether property was let out to the defendant after it was vacated by Shri Ramesh, her son executing the agreement dated 6.10.1992. He further admits that he was unaware as to whether defendant Smt. Mooli Devi has executed a rent note in favour of the plaintiff. Likewise, another defendant witness Shri Om Prakash (DW3) has stated that he was unaware if the defendant was occupying the subject property as tenant. He further admits that he was unaware as to whether defendant Smt. Mooli Devi has executed a rent note in favour of the plaintiff. Likewise, another defendant witness Shri Om Prakash (DW3) has stated that he was unaware if the defendant was occupying the subject property as tenant. Smt. Chandu Devi (DW4), daughter-in-law of the defendant Smt. Mooli Devi has categorically admitted in her cross examination that Ex.2 bears signature of S/Shri Mool chand Koli and Ram Avtar Sharma as attesting witnesses who have expired. Further, the plaintiff has proved execution of the agreement dated 6.10.1992 (Ex.4) by Ramesh Chand, son of the defendant, wherein, he has stated that after vacation of the subject premises by him, the plaintiff has let it out to his mother executing a separate agreement. There is no challenge to these findings by the learned counsel for the appellant. His sole argument denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is based on Ex.A9, the proceeding of Nagar Palika Bandikui with regard to payment of regularisation charges qua the subject property. However, a perusal of the findings of the learned courts reveals that after considering and appreciating the Ex.A9, it was found that the defendant could not establish her title over the subject property. This Court has also examined the proceeding recorded by the Nagar Palika, Bandikui vide Ex.A9 and is not satisfied that thereunder, title of the subject property was conferred upon the defendant. Rather, the order dated 10.12.1987 (Ex.17) passed by the Court of Additional District Collector, Dausa in revision petition no.5/87 preferred by the plaintiff under Section 80(2) of the Municipalities Act against the order dated 21.9.1986 passed by the Nagar Palika, Bandikui in favour of the defendant Smt. Mooli Devi and Shri Ram Swaroop directing them to pay the regularisation charges qua the subject property, reflects that the order dated 21.9.1986 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Nagar Palika Bandikui for decision afresh. The defendant could not produce any order of the Nagar Palika Bandikui conferring title of the subject property upon her. It has also rightly been held by the learned courts that question of title is not germane in a suit for eviction which is to be decided on the basis of establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It has also rightly been held by the learned courts that question of title is not germane in a suit for eviction which is to be decided on the basis of establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since, in the instant case, there is concurrent finding of fact with regard to establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua the subject property, which is not shown to be suffering from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned courts did not err in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit. 9. Since, the civil second appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, the same is dismissed. 10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.