JUDGMENT : 1. - This is defendant tenant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. 2. The plaintiff respondent's case as set out in the plaint is that western portion of tenanted plot was let out to the defendant tenant on monthly rent. The defendant has been carrying on the business of coal over the said plot. The plaintiff required the aforesaid tenanted plot reasonably and bona fidely. The defendant committed default in making the payment of rent and denied the title of the plaintiff in respect of the tenanted plot. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant tenant on number of grounds. The averments of the plaint were denied by the defendant by filing written statement. As many as 19 issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated March 27, 1998. The defendant preferred civil regular first appeal, but it was dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated Feb.12, 1999. Findings of the two courts below have now been assailed by the defendant in the instant second appeal. 4. Mr. B.L. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant canvassed that from the bare averments of the plaint grounds for committing default and reasonable bona fide necessity do not exist. I was taken through the pleadings as well as the provisions contained under section 13(1) (a), 13(1)(h) and 13(1)(k) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act). It was contended that the pleadings are defective and material facts have not been incorporated. Evidently the plaintiff required tenanted plot for raising construction work therefore in view of section 13(1)(k) of the Act, it was necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove the necessary ingredients of section 13(1) (k) of the Act, but both the courts below have not properly construed the aforesaid provisions of law. 5. In respect of issue regarding denial of title it was contended that pleadings, evidence and legal provisions have not been properly appreciated by the courts below. Reliance was placed on Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan vs. Municipal Board of Sitapur and another ( AIR 1965 SC 1923 ) , Ranbir Singh Vs. Asharfi Lal and Ratan Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal (1998(2) RLR 440. 6. On the other hand Mr. Reliance was placed on Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan vs. Municipal Board of Sitapur and another ( AIR 1965 SC 1923 ) , Ranbir Singh Vs. Asharfi Lal and Ratan Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal (1998(2) RLR 440. 6. On the other hand Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff urged that denial of landlord's title is a question of fact as is held in Bhura Vs. Bahadur Singh (RLW 1975 page 212) and Ram Lal and others vs. Girraj and others (1992(2) WLC 683) . It was further contended that in second appeal findings of fact arrived at by the courts below cannot be interfered. Reliance was placed on Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others QT 1999 (3) SC 163) and Dwarka Das and others vs. Chuni Lal and another (1999(1) WLC (Raj.) 233) . 7. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 8. The provisions of section 100 CPC are dear and unambiguous. As early as 1891 the Judicial Committee in Durga Choudhrani vs. Jawahir Singh (IT Ist.sppl. 122 (P.C.) propounded thus - 'There is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however gross the error may seem to be." 9. In Deity Pattabhiramaswamy vs. S. Hanymayya (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus:- "But, notwithstanding such clear and authoritative pronouncements on the scope of the provisions of section 100 Civil Procedure Code, some learned Judges of the High Court are disposing of second appeals as if they were first appeals. This introduces, apart from the fact that the High Court assumes and exercises a jurisdiction which it does not possess, a gambling element in the litigation and confusion in the mind of the litigant public." 10. Mattu Lal vs. Radhe Lal was the case wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus - (Para 11) "It is settled law that the High Court in second appeal can not appreciate the evidence and interfere with findings of fact reached by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court is final so far as findings of fact are concerned. The only limited ground on which the High Court can interfere in second appeal is that the decision of the lower appellate court is contrary to law. The lower appellate court is final so far as findings of fact are concerned. The only limited ground on which the High Court can interfere in second appeal is that the decision of the lower appellate court is contrary to law. It is only error of law which can be corrected by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction in second appeal." 11. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitri Bai (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus (para 5):- "It is not the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so." 12. It was held in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others (supra) by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that concurrent findings of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under section 100 Civil Procedure Code. 13. As is held in Bhura vs. Bahadur Singh (supra) and Ram Lal and others vs. Girraj and others (supra) finding in respect of denial of title is essentially a finding of fact, I am unable to pursuade myself under these circumstances to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. I can not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of the judicial pronouncements placed before me by the learned counsel. Even in Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal (supra) , authority cited by the learned counsel for the defendant, it is evident that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact which was based upon appreciation of relevant evidence even if finding grossly was erroneous. In para 14 of the said judgment it was indicated thus: "14. In para 14 of the said judgment it was indicated thus: "14. Sub-section (1) of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by the any court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Sub-section 4 of section 100 further provides that when the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. But it may be pointed out that the High Court formulated no such question of law on basis of which it proposed to interfere with the findings of facts. It has been the consistent view of this Court that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, based upon an appreciation of the relevant evidence. There is a plethora of case law in support of this view. To quote a few references may be made to the decision in Ramachandra vs. Ramalingam, AIR 1963 SC 302 , wherein this Court took the view that even if the appreciation of evidence made by the lower appellate court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly erroneous, that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error of defect in the procedure and the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower appellate court. This view has been reiterated by this Court in Bhagwan Das vs. Jiley Kaur, AIR 1991 SC 266 . This being the position, the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts of fact." 14. In view of what I have discussed here in above, I am satisfied that no substantial question of law involves in the instant second appeal warranting interference under section 100 Civil Procedure Code. 15. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******