Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant/defendant getting unsuccess in both the Courts below has preferred this appeal under Section 100 of C. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-3-2005, passed by 1th Additional District judge, Chhindwara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 27-A/02 affirming the judgment and decree dated 2-9-2002 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge Class-I, to the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge Class-I Chhindwara in Civil Original Suit No. 41-A/97 regarding eviction under M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. ( 2. ) THE respondents being landlord of house No. 82/83 situated at shineshwari Bazar, Santoshi Mata Ward, Chhindwara has filed a suit for eviction on available grounds, under Section 12 (1) (c), 12 (1) (e) and 12 (1) (g)of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the disclaimer of the title and accommodation is in dilapidated condition requires major repairing which could not be carried out without vacating it and also for bonafide genuine requirement for residential need of respondents: ( 3. ) AS per averments of plaint, aforesaid house was the property of one gyana Bai, the mother in-law of respondent No. 1 and mother of respondent no. 2, the same was given to Mohanlal the husband of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 by executing a Will vide Will dated 20-5-1993. On her demise aforesaid beneficiaries have become the owner and landlord of it. Subsequent to it, Mohanlal had died. On his demise being his legal representative respondent no. 1 has inherited his rights and become landlord also. The appellant being tenant was in possession of the ground floor of the house @ Rs. 500/- p. m. since the life time of Gyana Bai who has become the tenant of respondents in aforesaid circumstances. ( 4. ) THE appellant has filed his written statement with the contention that he never remained the tenant of respondents as such no tenancy was remained in between him and the respondents, the accommodation is not in dilapidated condition, it does not require any repairing. The alleged need of the respondents is also denied with the contention that they are in possession of sufficient other alternate accommodation with them. ( 5. The alleged need of the respondents is also denied with the contention that they are in possession of sufficient other alternate accommodation with them. ( 5. ) AFTER framing the issues evidence was recorded, on appreciation of it the trial court has decreed the suit against the appellant on the ground of section 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (e) of the Act while it was refused on the ground under Section 12 (1) (g) of the Act. On appeal the decree of Trial Court was affirmed by dismissing the appeal. Hence, this appeal is preferred at the instance of defendant tenant. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit was not filed in compliance of the provision of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC as the map of disputed portion to identify the same was not filed while in the absence of it decree could not have been passed. He further submitted that respondents has not put forth the explanation regarding other available accommodation of the same house which shows their negativeness of the alleged need. It was also said that respondents being only two members in their family are not in need of entire accommodation. The decree passed under Section 12 (1) (e) was challenged by assailing on the ground that title of respondents have not been proved, thus, decree could not have been passed on this ground. He also assailed the decree on the question of Section 12 (1) (c) saying that derivative title of respondents could have been challenged under the law and the same could not be a ground for eviction. Lastly he submitted that in the absence of cogent proof regarding relationship of landlord and tenant in between him and the respondent the decree for eviction is not sustainable under the law. All these questions have not been dealt with by the Courts below thus the same are open before this Court for adjudication and prayed for admission of this appeal. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel on perusing the record of Courts below and the judgments impugned, I have not found any perversity in between the evidence and findings of the Courts below. So far relationship is concerned there is concurrent findings of both the Courts that the appellant is a tenant of respondents landlord in the disputed accommodation. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel on perusing the record of Courts below and the judgments impugned, I have not found any perversity in between the evidence and findings of the Courts below. So far relationship is concerned there is concurrent findings of both the Courts that the appellant is a tenant of respondents landlord in the disputed accommodation. The findings on the ground of disclaimer of title and regarding bonafide need of the respondents are also concurrent and the same are entirely based on appreciation of the evidence and comes under the purview of findings of the fact and binding against the parties and there findings do not give rise any substantial questions of law as enumerated under Section 100 of C. P. C. ( 8. ) MY aforesaid view regarding relationship is supported by a decision of the Apex Court in view of the law laid down in the matter of Kalyan Singh Vs. Ramswaroop and another, reported in 1996 JLJ 247 , in which it was held as under:- "the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that it was not established that the appellant was a tenant of Smt. Gyasibai and that he was a tenant of the two sons. We are afraid this contention can not be accepted in view of the findings of the two courts below and such finding of fact is not open to challenge before this Court in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. " ( 9. ) THE findings on the question of bonafide requirement is also a finding of facts in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Ranbir Singh Vs. Asharfilal, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 580 , it directly applicable in which it is laid down as under:- "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 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 quite a few, references may be made to the decision in V. Ramachandra Ayyar Vs. Ramalingam Chettiar, 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 can not be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure and the High Court can not interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. This view has been reiterated by this Court in Bagwan Dass Vs. Jiley Kaur. 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. " So far disclaimer of the title is concerned, the appellant himself has categorically denied the relationship in his written statement and also in deposition. Thus, this admissions are binding against him as per provisions of sections 21, 58 and 115 of the Evidence Act, he cannot be escaped from the consequence of his admissions. As such finding based on his admission cannot be challenged in this appeal. ( 10. ) SO far identity of accommodation and map is concerned it is suffice to say that case was contested by both the parties with clear understanding regarding the disputed premises. In addition to it at the stage of first appeal appellant himself has stated that he does not want to challenge the title of the respondent, thus this cannot be a ground for admission of this appeal. Beside this the sufficient pleadings are available on record to identify the accommodation in dispute, thus the case law cited by the appellant in the matter of Laxman Singh s/o Meharban Singh Vs. Jagannath S/o Mansaram, reported in 2000 (1)M. P. H. T. 384 = 2000 (1) MPLJ 79, is not helping him. ( 11. Beside this the sufficient pleadings are available on record to identify the accommodation in dispute, thus the case law cited by the appellant in the matter of Laxman Singh s/o Meharban Singh Vs. Jagannath S/o Mansaram, reported in 2000 (1)M. P. H. T. 384 = 2000 (1) MPLJ 79, is not helping him. ( 11. ) IN view of the forgoing discussion, it is apparent that the all questions raised by the appellants are related to the appreciation of evidence and having the effect of only findings of fact, do not give rise any question of law much less the substantial question of law. Therefore, in the lack of it this appeal devoid the merits and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the initial stage. There shall be no order as to cost. Second Appeal dismissed.