JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the judgements of both the Courts below. 3. In my considered opinion, the question relating to subletting by tenant and parting possession to others is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts-below. The aforesaid concurrent findings of fact recorded on question of subletting by both the courts- below are based on analytical discussion of the materials available on record which are eminently just and proper and does not require interference in Second Appeal. 4. It is well to remember that the jurisdiction of this Court under amended Section 100 Civil Procedure Code is limited upto substantial questions of law only. This being the position under amended Section 100 Civil Procedure Code unless there is perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the courts below or unless both the Courts below can said to have arrived at a finding which on the basis of materials available on record no reasonable man can arrive on such finding, this Court would not interfere with such concurrent findings of fact. 5. Nothing has been brought to my notice in the present case which may lead me to the conclusion that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on question of sub-letting is either perverse or based on no evidence, therefore, I decline to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. Suffice it to say in this regard that due to inherent limitations under section 100 Civil Procedure Code reappraisal of evidence in the present case is not possible. I am of the view, that in the instant Second appeal no substantial question of law in involved, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed summarily. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the judgement rendered by me is case of Chiman Lal & Anr. v. Narendara Kumar, reported in DNJ (Raj.) 1995 page 563 and contended that the aforesaid judgement rendered by me which is based on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand & Anr. v. Ram Prasad, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 526 requires reconsideration in view of another judgement rendered by the Apex Court in case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha & Ors. v. Mrs. Eileen K. Patricia D'Rozarie, reported in AIR 1995 SC 515 . v. Ram Prasad, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 526 requires reconsideration in view of another judgement rendered by the Apex Court in case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha & Ors. v. Mrs. Eileen K. Patricia D'Rozarie, reported in AIR 1995 SC 515 . 7. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in admitting the present Second Appeal as the question argued by the learned counsel for appellant has already been conclusively decided by the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand & Ors. (supra). The ratio of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand & Ors. (supra) has been quoted in extenso in the judgement rendered by me in case of Chiman Lal & Anr. (supra). 8. In my humble opinion after decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand & Anr., (supra), the interpretation of Section 3 (vii)(b) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 17 of 1950) has attained finality and it is binding upon this Court. 9. The facts of the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha & Ors. (supra) rendered by the Apex Court are not applicable tothe facts of the present case, therefore, it is distinguishable. Since the question has been conclusively decided by the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand & Anr. (supra) regarding interpretation of Section 3 (vii)(b) of Act No. 17 of 1950 which has attained finality, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for appellant that in view of the decision rendered by the apex Court in case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Singha & Ors. (supra) the case is of debatable nature is not acceptable andit is hereby repelled. 10. It is brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for respondent Shri R.R. Nagouri that the view which I have taken in case of Chiman Lal & Anr. (supra) has also been taken by two learned single Judges of this Court, sitting singally in case of Smt. Usha & Ors. v. Sukhsampat Mal, decided on 11.5.1994, reported in RLW 1995 (1) (Raj.) 14 and another decision rendered by learned single Judge of this Court in case of Navneet Rai v. Otmal, decided on 9.11.1994 reported in RLW 1994 (2) Raj. 32 . 11. v. Sukhsampat Mal, decided on 11.5.1994, reported in RLW 1995 (1) (Raj.) 14 and another decision rendered by learned single Judge of this Court in case of Navneet Rai v. Otmal, decided on 9.11.1994 reported in RLW 1994 (2) Raj. 32 . 11. It is to be imbibed that the interpretation of Section 3(vii)(b) of Act No. 17 of 1950 given by the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand & Ors. (supra) is being followed by this Court constantly. After decision of the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand (supra) the interpretation of Section 3 (vii)(b) of Act No. 17 of 1950 cannot be termed to be debatable substantial question of law. 12. The ambiguity which is being suggested by the learned counsel for appellant in the present case has already been interpreted threadbare by the Apex Court in case of Tara Chand (supra). To my mind, such question which has been decided by the Apex Court and had attained finality cannot be said to be a substantial question of law.As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant Second Appeal lacks merit therefore it is hereby dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******