Short Note : 1. The respondent had filed a suit for eviction of the non-residential accommodation inter alia on the grounds that it was genuinely required for respondent No. 1 for running a hotel. Both the' Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the genuine requirement of respondent No. 1 was proved and hence the suit was decreed. The appellant has, therefore, come to this Court in Second Appeal. Held: The finding of the Court below that the suit accommodation is genuinely required for respondent No.1 for the purposes of running a hotel, is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. Even an erroneous finding of fact cannot be challenged in the Second Appeal. The ground, taken in the memorandum of appeal with respect to the validity of the notice and spliting of the tenancy was not taken in the written statement and no issue on that point was framed. Therefore, such a ground cannot be allowed to be taken in Second Appeal. To my mind, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.