Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-This second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant, is against the Judgment and decree dated 4.1980 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2 set aside the Judgment and decree dated 27.1978 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit for eviction against respondent-defendant Smt. Chand Kumari (now deceased), under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (for short the Act of 1950). 2. Theappellant-landlord-plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction of his respondent-tenant-defendants; Smt. Chand Kumari and her son Narendra Kumar. According to the plaintiff , the suit property described in para No. 1 of the plaint was let out to the defendants and the defendants were paying the rent @ of Rs. 50/-per month. According to plaintiff , the defendants have committed default in payment of rent as they did not pay the rent of the premises to the plaintiff from June, 1968 to April, 1970. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 500/-which was due in defendants on account of arrears of rent of the period prior to June 1968. The second ground for eviction was subletting of the premises by the defendants after closer of their business, which they were running in the name of MIs. Ganesh Timber Co., to one Shri Rashid and another person Shri Mukand Chand and to a Firm Shri Rathore Transport Third ground for decree for eviction against the tenant was the personal need of the plaintiff who intends to construct his house on the plot in dispute. 3. The defendants’ No. 1 and 2 submitted separate written statement but the pleading of both the defendants contains same defence and same additional pleas. According to the defendants, the defendants are not tenants in the suit property and the defendants claimed the suit property being their ancestral property, therefore, they claimed that they have right to use the property as per their own wished. The defendants denied the payment of rent by them to the plaintiff at any time and further pleaded that the alleged sublettees are not doing any business in the suit property. In additional pleading, both the defendants submitted that defendant No. 1 was partner in the MIs. Ganesh Timber Company and she was not the proprietor. Defendants further submitted that defendant No. 1 invested Rs. 15,000/-in the suit property. In additional pleading, both the defendants submitted that defendant No. 1 was partner in the MIs. Ganesh Timber Company and she was not the proprietor. Defendants further submitted that defendant No. 1 invested Rs. 15,000/-in the suit property. The defendant No. 2 took a specific plea that defendant No. 2 was never appointed as agent by the defendant No. 1 nor he was given any power to do anything on behalf of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 also pleaded, in same way, by saying that she never appointed defendant No. 2 as her agent nor defendant No. 2 was given any power by the defendant No. 1. 4. When the defendants denied not only relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants but also pleaded that the suit property belongs to defendant no 1 and her husband, the plaintiff submitted rejoinder to the written statement. In rejoinder, the plaintiff again empathetically reiterated that defendants are the tenants of the plaintiff in the suit property and the defendants took the premises for the business of Ganesh Timber Company. The plaintiff also submitted the defendant No. 1 husband was in government service and he got started the business in the name of his wife, defendant No. 1 and his son defendant No. 1 was looking after the business and defendant No. 2 will pay the rent on behalf of both. It is also submitted that the defendant No. l’s husband was also used to work there. The plaintiff gave relevant details, how the rent was paid by the defendants, when rent was increased, about giving of rent receipts to the defendants, the detail of cheques by which the rent was paid by the defendants etc. The plaintiff thereafter submitted that rent was paid mostly by cheques and in case, any cash rent was paid it was through voucher and on printed receipts. The plaintiff submitted that at the time of letting out the premises, the plaintiff was living out from Jodhpur, therefore, the property was let out by the plaintiffs brother Shanti Lal, and he was receiving the rent on behalf of the plaintiff Since the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff therefore plaintiff submitted the Patta of the plot in dispute. 5. 5. The trial court granted permission to the defendant No. 1 to submit reply to the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff In the reply to rejoinder, the defendant No. 1 stated that the property in dispute was in possession of the plaintiffs father Shri Kan Mal since last 40 years and he died in the year 1958. Before his death, Shri Kan Mal was doing business with one Madan Lal, in the name of Ganesh Timber Company. After the death of Kan Mal, the plaintiff became partner with Madan Lal. Madan Lal was looking after entire business and was keeping the accounts of the firm. All the relevant paper and books of accounts were with Madan Lal and he died, therefore, the defendants are not in possession of books of the firm and the relevant documents. According to the defendants, the business of Ganesh Timber Company increased and, therefore, Madan Lal took a plot on rent from plaintiffs brother Shanti Kumar in the month of November, 1962 on a rent of Rs. 23/-per month. The rent of this plot was increased to Rs. 42/-from 1.1965 and it was further increased of Rs. 50/-from 1.1966. The plaintiff pleaded that she is not remembering how and when the rent was paid and she is not remembering whether any cheques were given or not and whether any receipts were taken or not. The plot which was taken from Shanti Kumar on rent is situated in the south side of the plot in dispute, that too after a lane, it is further submitted that these facts (of taking on rent a land in the sought of the plot in dispute from Shanti Kumar) have nothing to do with the plot in dispute as the plot which was taken from Shanti Kumar was again handed over to Shanti Kumar on 7.1968. 6. Thetrial court framed as many as 15 issues. Both the parties produced documentary and oral evidence. The trial court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and held that defendant No. 1 took the plot in dispute on rent fromthe plaintiff on 1.1962. The defendant No. 2 is not the tenant in the premises, he only paid the rent on behalf of the defendant No. 1. Both the parties produced documentary and oral evidence. The trial court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and held that defendant No. 1 took the plot in dispute on rent fromthe plaintiff on 1.1962. The defendant No. 2 is not the tenant in the premises, he only paid the rent on behalf of the defendant No. 1. The trail court further held that since Shanti Kumar’s plot was in occupation of other tenants from 1962 to 1968, therefore, defendants could not have occupied the plot of Shanti Kumar. The defendants further failed to prove the defendant No. l’s father-in-law was in old possession of the property in dispute as no independent witness was produced in support of the said plea of the defendants. The trial court considered the various documents produced by the plaintiff and held that the defendants’ case, that they took one premises of Shanti Kumar on rent in the months of November, 1962 from plaintiffs brother Shanti Lal, stands falsified as if it was so then there was no reason for the defendants to pay the rent by cheques in the months of June, 1962, therefore, the trial court held that it was the payment of the rent of the disputed plot of the plaintiff through Shanti Lal as he was collecting the rent on behalf of the plaintiff for the plot in dispute. The trial court further, on the basis of the cheques of Rs. 42, Dt. 7.1962, Ex.2 found that the case of the defendants, that rent was increased to Rs. 42/-from 1.1995 is wrong as the defendants were paying the rent Rs. 42/-even from before July, 1962. The trial court also critically examined the documents produced by the defendants, Ex.A-1 which is a letter signed by Shanti Kumar, plaintiffs brother addressed to the Administrator, Municipal Board, jodhpur Giving no objection for installing saw-mill and the alleged admission of Shanti Kumar, in his statement in court in this very case, wherein Shanti Kumar stated that he let out the property in dispute to Jaswant Mal, husband of defendant No. 1, and rejected the plea of the defendant about letting out the property in dispute to Jaswant Mal. The trial court further held that business in the name of Ganesh Timber Company was going on even prior to 1.1962 but it cannot be held that said business was in the property in dispute. The trial court further held that business in the name of Ganesh Timber Company was going on even prior to 1.1962 but it cannot be held that said business was in the property in dispute. 7. Thetrial court held that rent of Rs. 500/-of the period falling before June, 1968 was also due in the defendants and since the defendants admittedly did not pay the rent as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint till the decision of the suit, therefore, the defendant No. 1 is liable to be evicted from the property in dispute. The trial court also decided the issues of personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiff and the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff 8. However, the trial court decided the issue of subletting of the premises by the defendants against the plaintiff Issue No. 6 was not decided by the trial court as this was an issue relating to the title of the disputed property and the issue was not pressed by the counsels for the defendants as it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court hearing the suit under Rent Control Act to adjudicate upon the title of property. The trial court decided issued No. 7 as not pressed and while deciding issue No. 8 and 13, held that defendants are not entitled for any special costs of damages. The trial court in issue No. 9 held that in case the plaintiff will evict the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 will be free to take her fixtures which she installed in the premises. The trial court rejected the prayer of the defendants for reduction in rent of the premises. It was further held that defendant No. 2 was authorised by defendant No. 1 to pay the rent. Ultimately, the suit for eviction against the defendant No. 1 was decreed by the trial court on 27.1978. However, it is relevant to mention here that the trial court found that defendant No. 1 alone is tenant and defendant No. 2 is not the tenant, therefore dismissed the suit against defendant No. 2. 9. Since the suit was decreed only against the defendant No. 1 alone, the defendant No. 1 Smt. Chand Kumari, without impleading defendant No. 2, preferred appeal against the Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 27.1978. 9. Since the suit was decreed only against the defendant No. 1 alone, the defendant No. 1 Smt. Chand Kumari, without impleading defendant No. 2, preferred appeal against the Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 27.1978. The plaintiff did not challenge the dismissal of suit against the defendant No. 2. The Appellate court allowed the appeal of the defendant and held that defendant No. 1 has not been proved to be tenant rather in view of the admission of the plaintiffs brother-witness Shanti Kumar, the defendant No. l’s husband Jaswant Mal is the tenant and since he is not party in the suit, therefore, suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 10. However, despite holding that the defendants are not tenants in the suit premises, still the first appellate court upheld that finding of the trial court in issue No. 2 and 7 and held that rent of Rs. 500/-prior to June, 1968 is due in defendant No. 1 and suit for recovery ot the rent is within limitation. The first appellate court also upheld that Finding of the trial court on issue No. 10 and rejected the defendant’s plea for reducing the rent from Rs. 50/-per month to Rs. 23/-per month by fixing Rs/-as standard rent of the premises. The first appellate court reversed the finding of trial court on issue No. 4 and 15 about personal necessity of the plaintiff for the suit premises and issue of comparative hardship. In last, the first appellate court in view of the decision on issues No. 1, 4 and 15 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, allowed the appeal of the defendant-respondent by Judgment and decree dated 4.1980 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff 11. The appeal was admitted on 28.1981 for hearing upon finding that following substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal: 1. Whether the learned lower appellate court which reversed the Judgment of the trial court has misconstrued the evidence on record particularly Ex. 2 to 6? 2. Whether the cheques towards the rent signed by Narendra Kumar Sb Smt. Chand Kumari were paid as her agent, and if so what is its effect on the suit? 3. Whether the learned lower appellate court which reversed the Judgment of the trial court has misconstrued the evidence on record particularly Ex. 2 to 6? 2. Whether the cheques towards the rent signed by Narendra Kumar Sb Smt. Chand Kumari were paid as her agent, and if so what is its effect on the suit? 3. Whether having held that the suit property is owned by the appellant and no plea of adverse possession being set up by the respondent notwithstanding that the learned lower appellate court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established in between the appellant and the respondent, the court must have still decree the suit on the basis ot title because it was proved on record.” 12. The appeal was heard and allowed by this Court by Judgment and decree dated 11.2000. The defendant respondent preferred Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgment dated 11.2000 and Hon’ble the Supreme Court granted leave and ultimately, allowed the appeal of the respondent by order dated 3 10.2001. Hon’ble the Supreme Court after considering the arguments of the both the parties, observed as under: “Without delving further into merits of the case of the parties, we deem it sufficient to observe that the reasons stated in the Judgment of the High Court for interfering with the finding of fact relating to existence or otherwise of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties are not satisfactory keeping in view limitation provided under Section 100, C.P.C.” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court further took note of the objection of the tenant appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court about not formulating any question of applicability of Section 1 3(I)(F) of the Act (Act of 1950) (ground for eviction of the tenant upon denial of landlord’s title by the tenant or because of renunciation of character by the tenant as of tenant) at the time of admission of second appeal or at the time of the hearing of the case and s3t aside the Judgment of this Court dated 11.2000 and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after formulating the substantial question of law which may arise in this case Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that both the parties will be given opportunities of placing their case on the point of formulating of substantial question of law in compliance of the provisions of Section 100(5) C.P.C. .14. After receipt of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, notices were issued to the parties. The record of the trial court and the first appellate court were called again and after hearing both the parties, following substantial question of law was framed by this court on 28.2003:- .“Whether this Court can pass the decree for eviction against the tenant on the ground of denial of title which is ground for eviction under Section 13(1) (f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of rent and eviction) Act, 1950, despite the fact the plaintiff has not sought decree on this ground by amending the plaint yet, but the fact of denial of title is available in the written statement of the defendant and despite the fact that the trial court as well as first appellate court have not decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the said ground?” 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first appellate court has committed gross error of law in reversing the funding of facts recorded by the trial court after appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first appellate court has committed gross error of law in reversing the funding of facts recorded by the trial court after appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties. More emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the ground that once the trial court decides questions of facts, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is limited for interference in the finding of the trial court but in this case, not only the first appellate court exceeded in its jurisdiction in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court but the first appellate court even did not consider the reasons given by the trial court for arriving at a decision. It is further submitted that even the reasons forming foundation for the decision have not been reversed by the first appellate court before upsetting the decision on issues. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court held that defendant No. 1 is tenant. It is nobody’s case, not even of defendants and not even of Jaswant Mal himself that Jaswant Mal was or is tenant in the disputed premises or he took on rent any premises still the first appellate court held that Jaswant Mal is tenant in the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff pleaded that suit property was let out to the defendant Chand Kumari and her son Narendra Kumar. When defendant denied the tenancy in written statement, the appellant plaintiff submitted rejoinder and gave the background in which the defendants took the premises on rent. The plaintiff submitted that the premises was taken on rent from 1.1992. Since Shri Jaswant Mal (husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2) was in government service, therefore, he got started business in the names of both the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that even after knowledge of the all facts as disclosed in plaint and rejoinder of the plaintiff , the defendants, who even after availing opportunity of filing reply to rejoinder, did not plead that the suit property was taken on rent by Jaswant Mal, the husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2. The entire case of the defendant No. 1 and 2 was that the suit property belongs to them as it is their ancestral property and was in possession of father-in-law of the defendant till his death and from the time of death of defendant No. l’s father-in- law, it is in possession of defendant No. 1. In view of the above, it is admitted case of the even defendants that Jaswant Mal was never in possession of the property in dispute, either as tenant or as owner or even as co-sharer with defendants. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the finding of the first appellate court about tenancy of Jaswant Mal, is result of misreading of the pleadings and evidence available on record particularly Ex.2 to Ex.6 as well as because of the fact that appellate court failed to notice the real controversy between the parties. It further submitted that the first appellate court even could not appreciate the facts of the case and reached to conclusion which no one could have conceived. The first appellate court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff after recording a finding which appears to be in favour of Jaswant Mal (though he is not party in the suit) but in fact can not be accepted by the said Jaswant Mal and defendants No. 1 and if defendant or Jaswant Mal accepts the finding of the first appellate court then also it gives all the more strong reason for setting aside of the Judgment of the first appellate court because, support to such perverse finding will expose the conduce of the defendants and said Jaswant Mal. .16. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the plaintiff proved his title and defendant failed to prove his title to the property, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for the decree of eviction against the .defendant on the basis of the title but this aspect was not considered by the first appellate court. 17. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the question of tenancy is decided in favour of the plaintiff appellant then the appellant plaintiff landlord is entitled for the decree for eviction against the respondent tenant under Sub-clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950 as the defendants in their written statement unequivocally denied the title of the plaintiff and also renounced their character as tenant. It is also submitted that when the denial in the written statement is unqualified and unequivocal with complete assertion of title in himself by the defendant then the court can pass the decree for eviction against the tenant from the rented premises even if the suit has not been amended incorporating such ground and issue has not been framed on the said ground as no prejudice can be caused to the defendants who voluntarily asserted title to the property in himself and denied the title of his landlord. In the present case denial of plaintiff title and renunciation of tenant’s character is so notorious, it can not be condoned and the plaintiff has not waived his right nor has condoned the act of the defendant and more than 30 years have passed in litigation. It is also submitted that as per the definition of the landlord given in the Act of 1950, the landlord need not to be even owner of the property and, therefore, in such case even if question of landlord’s title can not be decided even then once defendant is found to be tenant, the plaintiff-landlord becomes entitled for decree for eviction against such tenant. It is submitted that it is minimum requirement, recognised by law, that the tenant should not question either title or should not renounce his relationship with his landlord once he admitted himself to be tenant in the premises of the landlord. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon several Judgment s of this Court in support of his plea which are Moolchand vs. Isharlal (1), Heera Nand vs. Abdul Sattar (2), Smt. Pushpa Sharma vs. Gopal Lal Rawat (3), Lallu Narayan vs. Ratan Chand Lunia (4), Satya Narain vs. Bajran Lal (5) and Sheo Narain alias Saon vs. Janki Prasad (dead) through L.Rs. Radhey Shyam & Ors. (6). .18. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contested the appeal and invited this Court’s attention towards the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 3 10.2001 by which this Court’s Judgment dated 11.2000 was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent. Radhey Shyam & Ors. (6). .18. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contested the appeal and invited this Court’s attention towards the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 3 10.2001 by which this Court’s Judgment dated 11.2000 was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that” reasons stated in the Judgment of the High Court for interfering with the finding of fact relating to existence or otherwise of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties are not satisfactory keeping in view the limitation provided under Section 100 C.P.C.” According to the learned counsel for the respondent, all the reasons given in the Judgment of this court in its Judgment dated 11.2000 are found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court no sufficient reasons for interfering in the finding of fact by the High Court According to the learned counsel for the respondent, a bare perusal of the facts and the reasons given in the Judgment dated 11.2000, it is clear that this Court in above Judgment dealt with the oral evidence and the documentary evidence and, thereafter, interfered in the finding of fact recovered by the first appellate court. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no other evidence except which was considered by this court when the appeal of the appellant was allowed by the Judgment and decree dated 11.2000. Therefore, in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court cannot re-examine the issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also submitted that the first appellate court after appreciation of evidence accepted the admission of the plaintiffs brother Shanti Lal who let out the premises, therefore, there is no reason for this court to re-appreciate entire evidence and it is not a case of no evidence in support of finding but contrary to it, the finding is based on admission. It is also vehemently submitted that even if there is possibility of taking a different view by this court then also this Court can not and should not interfere in finding of fact recorded by the final court for deciding question of fact. It is also submitted that the documents Ex. It is also vehemently submitted that even if there is possibility of taking a different view by this court then also this Court can not and should not interfere in finding of fact recorded by the final court for deciding question of fact. It is also submitted that the documents Ex. 2 to 6 are the documents relating to another property taken on rent from plaintiffs brother and same has been handed over to the plaintiffs brother long ago. The plaintiff wants to take help of those documents relating to other property to evict the defendant from the defendant’s own ancestral property to evict the defendant from the defendant’s own ancestral property. Learned counsel for the respondent, relied upon several Judgment s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Panchugopal Barua & Ors., vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors. (7), and submitted that for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., existence of substantial question of law is sin qua non and new case or new plea not supported by pleading or evidence on record can be set up or raised in second appeal. By relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Gujar & Ors. (8), learned counsel for the respondent submitted that where a point of law has not been pleaded then litigant should not be allowed to raise such question as substantial question of law in second appeal. It is also submitted that if the question of law termed as substantial question stands already decided by a larger bench of High court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal court or by the Supreme Court, its wrong application to facts of the case should not be termed to be a substantial question law. In addition to above, mere appreciation of the facts and the documentary evidence cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the respondent by relying upon the Judgment of the .Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Han Singh vs. Kanhaiya Lal (9), submitted that finding recorded after appreciation of evidence cannot be set aside by the High Court after reappraisal of evidence and which of the witness should be believed, cannot be ground to interfere in the Judgment of the court below while exercising power under Section 100 C.P.C. 19. I considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. I considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. I do not find any force in the said submissions. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court found the reasons given in the Judgment of this court dated 11.2000 as insufficient for interference by the High Court in the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not hold that even if appellant proves the finding of the first appellate court as perverse, still High Court should not interfere in the finding recorded by the court below nor Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that in this case there exists no reason for interference in the finding recorded by the first appellate court. If it would have been so, the matter would not have been remanded back to this Court and the suit of the plaintiff would have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself there and then as nothing would have survived in the suit after holding that relations of landlord and tenant between the parties are not established or nor case is made out for interferences in finding recorded by the first appellate court. In addition to above, the second appeal has already been admitted by this Court as back as more than 20 years ago after formulating substantial questions of law and this court after remand from the Apex Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties finds that a more question of law is involved in this appeal, this court is required to decide the question of law framed in this appeal. The respondent way say that in fact substantial question of law framed by this court is in fact do not arise in appeal but after hearing appeal at length this court is of the view that this appeal contains substantial questions of law which requires answer from this court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of this court because this court, decided the second appeal on a point, for which no substantial question of law was framed by the High Court. In substance, direction of the Apex Court is that to hear both the parties before farming substantial question of law on the ground of denial of the title and renunciation of character as to tenant by the defendant. In substance, direction of the Apex Court is that to hear both the parties before farming substantial question of law on the ground of denial of the title and renunciation of character as to tenant by the defendant. This court after hearing both the parties found that said question is also involved in this appeal in addition to the question already framed. To decide the question framed in this appeal, this court is required to examine, which its limitation Under Section 100 CPC, whether the first appellate court was right in reversing the Judgment of the trial court or whether any interference of this court is required and if required, whether this court, within the jurisdiction available to this court in second appeal, can interfere. Therefore, this court within it’s limitations, entitled to examine the issue, whether plaintiff proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and this Court is frilly conscious that the finding of face recorded by the first appellate court can be interfered only when the finding of face is based on no evidence or resulted in to by misreading of the pleading or evidence, or the finding is perverse or the first appellate court committed error of law in interfering in the finding recorded by the trial court materially affecting the result of the case and in other permissible limits as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various Judgment referred above. 20. 1considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The substantial question of law No. 1 has been framed bon the basis of pleas of the appellant plaintiff as according to plaintiff , the first appellate court misconstrued the documents Ex.2 to Ex.2 to Ex. 6 and reversed the findings recorded by the trial court. Allegations of misconstruing the evidence including, Ex.2 to Ex.6 which culminated into a perverse Judgment which has been delivered by the first appellate court against the appellant plaintiff are the rent receipts by which admittedly rent was paid by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff and still the first appellate court held that defendant No. 1 is not tenant at all. To find out whether the first appellate court misread and misconstrued the above documents it will be necessary to examine the documents Ex.2 to Ex.6. To find out whether the first appellate court misread and misconstrued the above documents it will be necessary to examine the documents Ex.2 to Ex.6. The documents exhibit 2 reads (Translated in English) as under: “Total rent up to month of February 1968, Rs. 800/-where due in Smt. Chand Kanwar w/o Johari Mal Ji, proprietor Shr