Honble MISRA, J.–The issue raised in this appeal arises under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant is the landlord and respondent the tenant. The question raised by the appellant is, whether the High Court was right in setting aside the concurrent finding of facts in second appeal ? In other words, whether there existed any sub- stantial question of law and the High Court without framing any substantial question of law was justified in interfering with the concurrent finding of both the courts below ? The appellant also challenges that part of the order of the High Court confirming the first appellates court order which holds no default in payment of rent by the respondent. In short, the suit of the landlord was for the eviction of the respondent on grounds of default in payment of rent, sub- letting of the premises in question and creating nuisance which was decreed. The appellate court confirmed the finding of sub- letting and nuisance but set aside the finding of default. In second appeal the High Court confirmed first appellate court finding that there is no default but set aside the concurrent findi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document