JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. The ejectment was claimed on the ground that the defendant has committed defaults in payment of monthly rent and as he failed to make payment of 6 months' rent, he has rendered himself liable to eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (No. XVII of 1950), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The averments relating to the defaults committed by the defendant are contained in para 4 of the plaint. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. After trial, the learned Munsif, Nagaur, vide his judgment dated November 6, 1979 decreed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment and granted two months' time to the defendant to vacate the shop in suit. Aggrieved, the defendant went in appeal. The learned Civil Judge, Nagaur, by his judgment dated May 29, 1980 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated November 6, 1979 of the learned Munsif and granted two months' time to the defendant to hand-over the possession of the shop in question. Dissatisfied with the appellate judgment, the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 2. I have heard Mr. S.L. Mardia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.R. Tatia, learned counsel for the respondent at some length. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff has committed default as envisaged by Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and has, therefore, rendered himself liable to be evicted. It is futile for the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the tenancy was yearly and, therefore, he has not committed any default in the payment of rent. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has placed for my perusal the copy of the rent-note, in which, it is clearly mentioned that the defendant has taken the shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 31.25 P.5. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of the arguments, referred to Chinti Kaharin v. Kripashankar, AIR 1941 Patna 488, Ram Kumar v. Jagdish Chandra, AIR 1952 Supreme Court 23, and Basant Lal v. Bhagwati, 1975 WLNIS and Hasanlal v. State, AIR 1959 Rajasthan 1. 31.25 P.5. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of the arguments, referred to Chinti Kaharin v. Kripashankar, AIR 1941 Patna 488, Ram Kumar v. Jagdish Chandra, AIR 1952 Supreme Court 23, and Basant Lal v. Bhagwati, 1975 WLNIS and Hasanlal v. State, AIR 1959 Rajasthan 1. I have read these decisions with requisite care and I am satisfied that they are of no assistance whatsoever to the appellant.6. So far as Heerchand v. Jeevrai, is concerned, which is a Full Bench decision, a learned Single Judge in his separate concurring judgment had observed that where the approach of the first appellate Court in the appeal before him was thoroughly wrong and inverted, its discussion of evidence being one sided leaving entirely out of account the consideration that the judgment of a first Court of a peal to which the law in our country attaches a finality on question of fact should show that such Court has applied its own judicial mind to all important evidence on the record, and it disposed of the appeal from an entirely wrong angle, by putting a wrong burden of proof, the finding of fact cannot be binding in second appeal either before a Single Judge or Full Bench. The decision of law is undoubtedly beyond any dispute and that there are catena of later cases of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on this point.7. Issue No. 1 was framed by the trial Court. The burden was rightly placed on the plaintiff. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. On the basis of the findings recorded in aspect of this issue, both the Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the defendant is defaulter within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the finding that the defendant is a defaulter inasmuch as he has committed default in payment of rent for more 6 months, the plaintiff's case to evict the defendant under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act thus stands proved. I am not satisfied that while holding the defendant to be a defaulter under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, the first appellate Court has committed any error of law or any substantial error of procedure. In my opinion, in this appeal, no substantial question of law is involved.8. I am not satisfied that while holding the defendant to be a defaulter under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, the first appellate Court has committed any error of law or any substantial error of procedure. In my opinion, in this appeal, no substantial question of law is involved.8. The result is that this appeal has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.9. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for 6 months time to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff-respondent, to which, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has no objection. Six months' time is allowed to the defendant-appellant to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff-respondent made clear that the plaintiff-respondent will be entitled to recover from the defendant-appellant all the amount of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation until the date of handing-over the possess on of the shop in question to the plaintiff-respondent.Petition allowed. *******