JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This RSA challenges the order dated 13th December, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 26th March, 2004 decreeing the suit filed againt the appellant/defendant by the respondent/plaintiff.
2. The respondent filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the present appellant who was the original defendant. The said suit was decreed and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. A decree towards arrears of rent was also passed. The impugned judgment was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal by raising a plea therein that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant.
3. It is not in dispute that the Smt. Satya Bhama was predecessor in interest holding the title of the suit property and the present respondent had purchased the property from the said Smt. Satya Bhama. The appellant took a plea that he was not a tenant but was a commission agent and an agreement dated 23th August, 1984 entered into between him and Smt. Satya Bhama provided for such commission payment. It was, therefore, contended that he was not a tenant in the suit premises. The further contention of the appellant was that the commission agreement could not be read as a rent agreement. Both the trial court and the appellate court held that the agreement purporting to be an agreement for commission was clearly camouflage for a agreement for renting the premises, and landlord and tenant relationship stood established between Satya Bhama and the appellant, who was the original defendant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the following substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal:
“Whether a person having no title in the property can dispossess a person who has possessory title of a property?
5. Quite apart from the fact that the above question is not a substantial question of law and at best is only a question of law, the parameters requisite for the application of said question of law do not exist in the present case. The appellant had entered into an agreement with the erstwhile owner of the premises Smt. Satya Bhama which was found to be a camouflaged rent agreement in the guise of an agreement for payment of commission.
6. Both the courts below had given cogent reasons for coming to such a concurrent finding that the agreement for commission was in fact a camouflaged rent agreement. Such a concurrent finding of fact is not amenable to challenge in second appeal.
7. It is not in dispute that the erstwhile owner Smt. Satya Bhama sent a notice to the appellant stating that the property has been sold to the respondents Shri Ramanand Gupta and Shri Pankaj Gupta. The appellant who on his own showing had entered into an agreement for commission payment to the erstwhile owner Smt. Satyabhama cannot now be heard to proclaim a possessory title. The second appeal is thus dismissed in liming.
8. All pending applications also stand disposed of.