JUDGMENT 1. - A suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-Chhote Lal against the defendant-appellant:-Ram Lal on the ground of bona fide personal necessity as also on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, but the defendant-appellant denied the relationship of land-lord and tenant between himself and the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the suit premises did not belong to the plaintiff. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The substantial questions of law which inter alia has been formulated by the appellant's advocate, is to the effect that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and against the weight of preponderance of evidence in favour of the defendant and on this basis it was argued that the findings of fact recorded by the Court below suffers from perversity and it was further contended that the Courts below have not considered the question of partial eviction while trying the suit and in this connection reliance has been placed on Krishna Murari Prasad v. Mitar Singh, AIR 1994 SC 489 & Rahman leo Wangoo v. Ram Chand & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 413 . 3. Having perused the judgments & decree of the Courts below, I find no substance in any of the contentions as they all ultimately lead to re-appreciation of evidence, which has been fully considered by the two Courts below. It would be worth-while in this context to refer to the decision Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marmor, reported in AIR 1999 SC 864 delivered in the matter, where the the learned Judges have been pleased to hold that "whether a finding of fact reached by Courts below is against the weight of evidence or not is a question which will remain in the realm of appreciation of evidence and does not project any question of law, much less, any substantial question of law." It is further relevant to refer to the decision Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopaan Gujar & Ors., 1999(2) Current Civil Cases (SC) 36 wherein it has been held that concurrent findings of facts howsoever erroneous, cannot be disturbed by the High Court. 4. 4. In the case at hand nothing could be elicited from which it could be inferred that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and the Courts below having recorded that the plaintiff/respondent has been able to prove his bona fide personal necessity in regard to the entire suit premises, the plaintiff /landlord cannot be compelled for partial eviction of the suit premises once it is held that after meticulous examination of evidence that all the rooms are required by the landlord/ plaintiff for his personal necessity. 5. The second appeal, under the circumstances, stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.Second appeal dismissed. *******