JUDGMENT 1. - The first respondent Smt. Sarita Singh filed a suit for ejectment for the suit shop situated at Bikaner on the ground that respondent No.2 is the tenant of the shop at the rent of Rs. 300/- per month. The second respondent paid the rent up to June, 1981 only and thereafter, is in arrears of rent and that the appellants are the sub tenants inducted by second respondent without the consent of the first respondent landlord. The second respondent did not enter appearance and the proceedings were taken ex-parte against him. The appellants filed a joint written statement contending that shop was given by the first respondent on rent through her mother Smt. Kanta Khatooriya. They have denied the subtenancy and arrears of rent. 2. The trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the first respondent. The lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and has relied upon the following circumstances for holding that the appellants are inducted as sub-tenants by respondent No. 2 without the consent of the landlord, respondent No. 1:- (1) That it is the case of the defendant-appellants that it was agreed that rent shall be paid to the second respondent and he shall in turn hand-over the rent to the first,respondent landlord and he was to act as a guarantor for payment of the rent, but in the evidence a different story was put forth. that the rent was directly paid and accepted by the first respondent landlord which impairs the credibility of the appellants version. (2) No rent receipts have been produced by the tenant. (3) Account Books showing entries of the payment of the-rent not produced, although, maintenance of the account books and making of the entries thereof is admitted by the appellants. (4) Satyanarain, respondent No. 2 has not been examined as the witness. (5) No steps have been taken for the production of Kirayanama said to have been executed between the appellants and the landlord. 3. The appellants' case that neither plaintiff nor her mother was examined and, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn was also considered by the first appellate Court before arriving at the conclusion that the appellants are the sub-tenants of the second respondent in the suit premises without the consent of the first respondent. 4. 3. The appellants' case that neither plaintiff nor her mother was examined and, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn was also considered by the first appellate Court before arriving at the conclusion that the appellants are the sub-tenants of the second respondent in the suit premises without the consent of the first respondent. 4. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that the trial Court has given a well reasoned judgment and the lower Appellate Court should not have interfered with it. It is true that normally the lower Appellate Court should be slow-in interfering with the findings recorded by the trial Court, but it is equally true that Appellate Court being the final Court of fact have jurisdiction and competence to appreciate whole evidence afresh and come to it's own conclusion. When the lower Appellate Court has passed a reasoned order, it cannot be said that it has acted without jurisdiction or the competence. 5. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 is guided by certain principles of law, that finding of fact is binding in second appeal and finding based on evidence cannot be interfered. Arrival of certain finding on appreciation of the evidence on record remains a finding of fact and does not become a question of law merely on the ground that the different finding could have been arrived at on same set of fact by the Court Finding of fact if arrived at on the basis of non-admissible evidence, mis-reading of the evidence or refusal to consider material evidence on the point may in a given case become a question of law or a finding which is perverse, that is to say, no reasonable man could arrive at such finding, can be interfered with exercising powers under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, but not otherwise. Question whether appellants are the sub-tenants inducted by respondent No. 2 without the consent of the landlord is a question of fact and cannot be interfered with without there being anything to assail it on the aforesaid premises. 6. After consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and after going through the record. Question whether appellants are the sub-tenants inducted by respondent No. 2 without the consent of the landlord is a question of fact and cannot be interfered with without there being anything to assail it on the aforesaid premises. 6. After consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and after going through the record. I do not find any justiciable ground to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, that the appellants are the sub-tenants without the permission of the landlord.Consequent thereof, this appeal fails and is dismissed. However, in. the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed . *******