JUDGMENT 1. - A decree of eviction has been passed against the defendant-appellant in a suit for eviction which was dismissed by the trial Court, but was reversed at the appellate stage by the First Appellate Court on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The finding of fact, to the effect that the plaintiff-landlord has himself been living in a rented premises alongwith thirteen members has not been denied even at the trial stage, but the expection of the tenant/appellant is that the landlord/respondent, who is living in a rented premises, should be directed to shift alongwith, his family of 13 persons in the left over six rooms in the premises. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this Court should interfere with the Judgment & decree of the First Appellate Court on the ground that the landlord although is living in a rented premises, he should be directed to shift and accommodate himself in the six rooms alongwith 13 members of the family by interfering with the Judgment & Decree of the First Appellate Court. 3. It is apparent that this absolutely cannot be treated as a substantial question of law and this Court cannot admit the second appeal merely for appreciation of evidence in absence of any perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below. The second appeal therefore, is not fit to be entertained and hence it stands dismissed.Second Appeal dismissed. *******