JUDGMENT : 1. The tenant Madan Lal in the instant second appeal has assailed the concurrent findings of the facts arrived at by two Courts below. The suit for eviction instituted by land lord Radha Kishan in respect of a shop in the year 1991 was decreed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) East Jaipur City on 24.3.2000. The Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur City vide Judgment and decree dated 18.12.2000 dismissed the Regular First Appeal preferred by the tenant Madan Lal. Both the Courts below were of the view that the landlord's requirement of the tenanted shop was reasonable and bona fide and if the shop was not vacated, the landlord would suffer more hardship than the tenant. Need of the landlord could not have been satisfied by keeping only a part of the shop as the size of the shop was too small. 2. Mr. B.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant 'appellant' canvassed that during the pendency of the suit, the landlord acquired possession of another shop and let it out on higher rent. Therefore, need of the landlord could not have been termed as reasonable and bone fide. Reliance was placed on Amarjeet Singh v. Khatoon Quaniarain, AIR 1987 SC 741 and Molar Mal v. Kay Iron Works, (2000) 4 SCC 285 . 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced before me and closely scanned the findings of two Courts below. I find no merit in the submission of learned counsel. The landlord never acquired vacant possession of another shop. In a suit for eviction of another shop the land lord entered into compromise with the defendant tenant Hemraj who allowed one Ram Swaroop as sub-tenant in the shop. Fresh rent deed was executed and the suit stood withdrawn. Learned first appellate Court discussed in detail the arguments raised on behalf of the tenant and did not agree with the submission that another suit was collusively withdrawn. 4. In the authorities relied on by the appellant it was contended that land lord had acquired possession of other premises during pendency of the eviction proceedings. This case law cited by learned counsel is distinguishable and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. 4. In the authorities relied on by the appellant it was contended that land lord had acquired possession of other premises during pendency of the eviction proceedings. This case law cited by learned counsel is distinguishable and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. In Mattu Lal v. Radhey Lal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that - (Para 11) "It is settled law that the High Court in second appeal cannot appreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings of fact reached by the lower appellate Courts so far as findings of fact are concerned." 6. It is not the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived by the last Court of fact, being the first appellate Court. In Kandiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitri Bai, JT (1999) 3 SC 163 , it was propounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that concurrent findings of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of powers under section 100 CPC. 7. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove I am satisfied that no substantial question of law involves in the instant second appeal warranting interference under section 100 CPC. 8. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.Second Appeal Rejected.