JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for eviction in respect of the rented shop against the defendant-appellant in the lower Court, which was dismissed. However, on an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs the suit for eviction was decreed by the first Appellate Court on the ground of non-user of the premises as contained in Clause (J) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. 3. Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that the plaintiff has not pleaded specifically in his plaint about the non-user of the rented premises that the defendant is not using the shop for last continuous six months. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant referred the case of Gauri Lal v. Gujar Mal, through his Lrs, WLC (Raj) 1992 (1) Page 437 . 4. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant. 5. There is a specific pleading in pars No. 4 of the plaint that the defendant is not using the disputed shop for last more than continuous six months and the same is lying closed. 6. In Gauri Lal v. Gujar Mal (supra) this Court considered the provisions of section 13 (1) (J) of the Act, 1950 and held that the landlord has to plead specifically that the tenant has not made use of the disputed premises continuously for a period for six months. So far as the present case is concerned, there is a specific pleading and evidence in this regard. The lower Appellate Court after considering the evidence on record has recorded a finding that the defendant is not using the rented premises for last about 15 months before the date of filing of the suit, therefore, above referred judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. The question of non-user of the rented premises is purely a question of fact and there is a finding of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal under section 100 of the C.P.C. 8. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******