Honble DALELA, J.–Heard. (2). The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a civil suit, for rent & ejectment, on the ground of default in the payment of rent & personal bona fide necessity. That suit was dismissed by the learned trial court, holding that there was no relationship of landlord & tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff-respondent thereupon instituted a second suit, for possession & damages, on the ground that the defendant, appellant has not accepted himself as the tenant of the plaintiff and his possession is that of a trespasser. The learned trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate court, which has also dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the defendant-appellant has preferred this second appeal. (3). Out of the nine questions, framed by the appellant, in the memo of the appeal, eight are as under:- 1. Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, the judgments & decrees of the courts below, are perverse & irrational ? 2. Whether the judgments & decrees of the courts below are contrary to the preponderating weight of evidence on record ? 3. Whether the plaintiff having failed to establish the title of Zahoor Mohammad, the suit for possession ought to have been dismissed ? 4. Whether the suit for declaration ought to have been filed, without which, the courts below should not have decided the title in the matter ? 5. Whether the plaintiff has proved his ownership ? 6. Whether the defendant-appellant is in the adverse possession of the suit-property ? 7. Whether the damages could be awarded by the courts below? 8. Whether a decree for possession could have been passed by he courts below ? (4). Evidently, all the above questions are questions of facts and require re-appreciation of evidence. It is well-settled in law that in second appeal, no appreciation of evidence can be done, and the concurrent findings of facts cannot be upset. The findings of facts, based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be upset by re-appreciation of evidence, in second appeal. The aforesaid eight questions, framed by the appellant, do not involve any substantial question of law, and it is well-known in law hat in the absence of any substantial question of law, a second appeal cannot be entertained. (5). The findings of facts, based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be upset by re-appreciation of evidence, in second appeal. The aforesaid eight questions, framed by the appellant, do not involve any substantial question of law, and it is well-known in law hat in the absence of any substantial question of law, a second appeal cannot be entertained. (5). The last question, framed by the appellant, in the memo of appeal, is whether the present suit was barred under Order-2, Rule-2 & Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) ? (6). The earlier suit, preferred by the plaintiff-respondent, was on the basis of landlord-tenant relationship. The present suit is on the basis of the title and tres- pass. In the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal (1), Honble the Supreme Court has held as under :- ``It may be pointed out that it is well settled law that the question of title of the property is not germane for decision of the eviction suit. In a case where a plaintiff institutes a suit for eviction of his tenant based on the relationship of the landlord and tenant, the scope of the suit is very much limited in which a question of title cannot be gone into because the suit of the plaintiff would be dismissed even if he succeeds in proving his title but fails to establish the privity of contract of tenancy. In a suit for eviction based on such relationship the Court has only to decide whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not, though, the question of title if disputed, may incidentally be gone into in connection with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the litigating parties......If the Court finds existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it will have to pass a decree in accordance with law ..... all that the court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. all that the court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. In order to decide whether denial of landlords title by the tenant is bonafide the Court may have to go into tenants contention on the issue but the Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court has to see whe- ther the tenants denial of title of the land is bonafide in the circumstances of the case. (7). The earlier suit, brought by the plaintiff-respondent, was to eject the defendant-appellant, on the basis of the tenancy, and the present suit seeks to eject the defendant as trespasser. In the case of Ram Laxman Janki vs. Makund Lal Sahu (2), a Division Bench of the Patna High Court has held that where the earlier suit by the plaintiff was to eject the defendant on the termination of the tenancy and the latter suit to eject the defendant as trespasser, the latter suit is not barred under Order-2, Rule-2. CPC, because, the latter suit was based on a cause of action different from that in the earlier suit. It is thus settled position of law that a suit for ejectment on the basis of tenancy and a suit for ejectment of the defendant as a trespasser, are not based on the same cause of action and, therefore, the bar under Order-2, Rule-2, CPC, is not attracted in the instant case in hand. Obviously, the issues substantially and directly in the previous suit; are quite different from the issues and cause of action involved in the second suit. Therefore, the principle of res judicata, implied in Sec.11, CPC, is not applicable to the present matter. Therefore, the last question, framed by the appellant, as to whether the suit was barred under O. 2, R. 2 & Sec. 11, CPC, does not involve a substantial question of law in the matter. There is thus no substantial question of law involved in the matter. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. I find no substantial question of law, emerging in this appeal, and the concurrent findings of facts of the learned courts below, cannot be upset in this second appeal. (8). Therefore, this second appeal is dismissed. (9). Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. I find no substantial question of law, emerging in this appeal, and the concurrent findings of facts of the learned courts below, cannot be upset in this second appeal. (8). Therefore, this second appeal is dismissed. (9). The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed at Bar that some reasonable time be given to the appellant, for vacating the suit- premises. (10). The learned counsel for the respondent, has opposed this prayer, contending that there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below that the defendant-appellant is a trespasser and no leniency should be exercised in favour of a trespasser. (11). I do not find any force in the prayer of the learned counsel for the appe- llant. made at Bar. Therefore, the same is rejected.