The judgment established the limitation on interference in second appeal after the amendment of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the binding nature of findings by the lower Courts and the impermissibility of re-appraisal of evidence.

1. The present second appeal is preferred against the concurrent finding of fact, recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the premises in question is required reasonably and bonafidely by the landlord and his son, within the meaning of clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950).

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, at length. Pursued the judgments given by both the courts below.

3. It is urged by the learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, Shri Sagar Mal Mehta that even if the present second appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact, interference is possible, provided, it is demonstrated before this Court that findings are either perverse, or based on no evidence, or it is shown that material evidence is ignored by Courts below and if it would have been (taken) into account by the Court below, the findings would have been otherwise. Lastly, it is submitted that in those second appeals, where ironing out of creases of statutory provisions are involved, even such appeals are concluded by concurrent findings of fact, even then interference can be made possible within the meaning of amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

4. The learned Counsel, Shri B.L. Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the respondent, supported the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by both the Courts below. It is urged by Shri Agarwak that the instant second appeal is concluded by the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by both the Courts below and no substantial question of law is involved in it therefore it deserves to be dismissed at admission stage. It is submitted by Shri Agarwal that the learned trial Court has assessed the testimonial value of all the witnesses examined by both the parties, except P.W. 5, Pappu alias Ganesh. According to him, although, the learned trial Court has not examined the testimonial value of P.W. 5, but when this question was agitated before the learned first appellate Court, its testimoinal value was assessed by it.

5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that prior to amendment of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , interference could have been made in second appeal where an order was shown to be contrary to law or some usage having the force of law, but after amendment, it can only be interfered if any substantial question of law arises in it and not otherwise. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, of Hari Singh v. Kanhaiya Lal and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar reported in 1999 (3) SCC 722.

6. In rejoinder, Shri Mehta has brought to my notice the oral statements of P.W.1, Gyarsilal; P.W.2, Gopal; P.W.3, Shyamlal; P.W.4, Munna; and P.W.5, Pappu alias Ganesh. He also invited my attention to the statements of D.W.1, Satya Parkash; D.W.2, Kishan Gopal; and D.W.3, Mukut Behari, examined by the tenant-defendant-appellant. He brought to my notice an isolated piece of statement of P.W.5, which, according to him, is relevant in the present case, for just decision of the case.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar.

8. I have examined the judgment given by the learned first appellate Court in the light of Order 41, Rule 31, CPC, which reveals that the learned first appellate Court has decided the point for determination between the parties, in accordance with law. The learned first appellate Court has consciously re-assessed the testimonial value of the evidence adduced by both the parties, in reference to the points of law involved in first appeal. In this case, the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court, are based on analytical discussion of the evidence adduced by both the parties. In support of its findings, the learned first appellate Court