JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for appellant Shri A.L. Chopra at length. I have been taken through the judgments given by both the courts below with the assistance of Mr. Chopra. 2. Instant Second Appeal is concluded by concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below and no substantial question of law is involved. 3. It is well to remember that interference with the concurrent finding of fact by this Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. There are inherent limitation for interference in concurrent finding of facts recorded by courts below. In such cases where both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence just to replace the concurrent finding of facts recorded by two courts below. 4. In the present case the learned lower appellate court has fairly appreciated the evidence on record adduced by both the parties and has confirmed the conclusion of the trial court. In such a situation I do not think it fit and proper to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below within the meaning of amended Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. Assuming for arguments sake that other view is possible on reappreciation of evidence on record even then this Court will refrain to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts below unless it is demonstrated that the aforesaid finding is either perverse or based on no evidence on record. Nothing is brought to my notice that either the finding is perverse or based on no evidence, therefore, the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts below deserves to be affirmed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Chopra urged before me that it is true that when the agreement of tenancy was entered into on 4.11.69, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act. No. 17 of 1950) was not applicable to the premises in question. It is further admitted that there were stipulations in the contract of tenancy that in the event of any default in payment of rent that tenancy would be forfeited. 6. It is vehemently urged by Mr. No. 17 of 1950) was not applicable to the premises in question. It is further admitted that there were stipulations in the contract of tenancy that in the event of any default in payment of rent that tenancy would be forfeited. 6. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Chopra that since Act No. 17 of 1950 was made applicable to the town of Napasar vide Notification published on 18.9.79 in Rajasthan Raj Patra, therefore, applicability of the Act is to be extended to the premises in question. The aforesaid argument is not acceptable for the reasons given hereinbelow. 7. It is to be noticed that in the present case no such plea was raised in the written statement and no such issue was framed about the applicability of Act No. 17 of 1950 for the reasons best known to the tenant-defendant-appellant. No steps were taken to amend the written statement as postulated under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code at any stage of the suit or appeal. There is no discussion about the aforesaid point in the judgment of both the courts below. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the appellant to raise a new point which was not raised before any of courts below by way of amending the written statement. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the aforesaid ground was taken before the learned lower appellate court but no memo of appeal has been filed along with the Second Appeal to demonstrate that the point being argued before me was also argued before learned lower appellate court. A pointed question was asked to the learned Counsel for appellant whether he has got a copy of memo of appeal with him but he replied in negative. In absence of memo of appeal how it can be argued that the aforesaid point was taken in memo of appeal. 10. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that many grounds are taken in the memo of appeal but only some of them are argued and rest of them are left over. Even the memo of appeal is produced and it is shown that such ground was taken, it would not be sufficient unless it is further proved before this Court that this ground was argued by the counsel before the learned lower appellate court. 11. Even the memo of appeal is produced and it is shown that such ground was taken, it would not be sufficient unless it is further proved before this Court that this ground was argued by the counsel before the learned lower appellate court. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this Court has no option except to believe the statement of the learned lower appellate court recorded in its judgment as to what points were argued. Since there is no reference about the aforesaid argument in the judgment, therefore, I am satisfied that this argument was never raised before the learned lower appellate court. The aforesaid principle of law must be taken to be settled to the effect that statement of facts recorded in a judgment are to be treated to be last word on the subject. I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view from a decision' rendered by the apex court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Ors. reported in 1982, SC 1249 . 12. Learned Counsel Shri A.L. Chopra prayed that he is running a petrol pump over the disputed premises and for shifting his business to some other premises at least one year's period in the interest of Justice may be given. I think it Just and proper to allow the appellant to remain in possession over the disputed premises for a period of 8 months from today provided he deposits the entire decreetal amount before the trial court and continue to deposit the future rent month by month. The appellant is further directed to execute a written undertaking before the learned trial court that immediately after expiry of 8 months from today he will hand over peaceful possession to the land lord. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction the instant Second Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed in limine. *******