JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh Junction in Civil Appeal No. 28/1991 whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.11.1985 passed by the Munsif, Hanumangarh in Civil Original Suit No. 116/1981. 2. By the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 04.11.1985, the learned Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 7 essentially on the ground of default and subletting after categorical findings that the defendant No.2, the present appellant, was in possession of the suit premises as a sub-lettee without permission and consent of the landlord. The learned Appellate Court proceeded to affirm the findings on default in payment of rent by the tenant Virendra Singh and so also on subletting to the present appellant after appreciation of the evidence on record. The allegation of appellant about collusion between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 Virendra Singh had been rejected by the Trial Court in issue No.3 and such a finding was also affirmed by the Appellate Court after thorough examination of the evidence on record. The allegation of appellant about collusion between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 Virendra Singh had been rejected by the Trial Court in issue No.3 and such a finding was also affirmed by the Appellate Court after thorough examination of the evidence on record. While affirming the finding on issue No.2 on the question of subletting and while rejecting the case of the appellant that he was a direct tenant in the suit premises, the learned Appellate Court, inter alia, said,- " 31- bl fook|d fcUnq dk izek.k Hkkj Hkh vihykFkhZ ij Fkk vihykFkhZ ds }kjk bl nkok dh dk;Zokgh es Hkkx ysdj ;g dgk x;k gS fd og ohjsUnzflag dk mi fdjk;snkj ugha gS cfYd mlus izR;FkhZ vkSeizdk'k ls fookfnr ifjlj dks lu~ 1969&70 esa fdjk;s ij fy;k gS vkSj mls rFkk mlds HkkbZ izdk'kpUn dks fdjk;k vnk djrk jgk gSA bl lEcU/k esa bruk gh mYys[k djuk i;kZIr jgsxk fd vihykFkhZ viuh lk{; ds }kjk u rks ;g Li"V dj ldk fd mlus fookfnr ifjlj dc fdjk;s ij fy;k & uk ;g Li"V dj ldk fd mlus fdl O;fDr ds lkeus fookfnr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fy;kA mlus fdjk;k dc dc fdruk fdruk vnk fd;k vkSj fdlds lkeus vnk fd;k A mldk lk{kh Mh0 M0 3 dkSjpan ;g dgrk gS fd mls ;g irk ugha fd fookfnr ifjlj esa vihykFkhZ fdl gSfl;r ls jgrk gSA vihykFkhZ us mlds lkeus dHkh dksbZ fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k & uk mlds lkeus dHkh fookfnr ifjlj dk fdjk;k r; gqvkA bl lEcU/k esa Mh0 M0 2 iq:"kksre dh lk{; Hkh ekSu gSA ih0M0 1 vkSeizdk'k vkSj ih0M0 2 izdk'kpUnz us vihykFkhZ dks viuk fdjk;snkj gksuk vkSj mlls dHkh fdjk;k fy;s tkus ds rF; dks iwjh rjg ls badkj fd;k gSA ,slh voLFkk esa vihykFkhZ ;g rF; izekf.kr djus esa vleFkZ jgk f dog izR;FkhZ dk lh/ks rkSj ij fdjk;snkj gS vkSj og mi fdjk;snkj ugha gSA 32- izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd fookfnr ifjlj ds fy, mudk fdjk;snkj uktjflag FkkA mldh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ mldk nRrd iq+++= ohjsUnzflag gSA ohjsUnzflag bl ifjlj dks NksM+dj eyksV pyk x;k vkSj mlus ogha viuk O;olk; o fjgk;'k dj yhA mlus fookfnr ifjlj lh/ks izR;FkhZ vkSeizdk'k dks ugha lEHkyk;k cfYd mls /keZiky dks mi fdjk;s ij ns x;kA bl rF; ds lEcU/k esa fookn jgk fd /keZiky vihykFkhZ 15&16 o"kksZa ls fookfnr ifjlj esa fuokl djrk gS vFkok nkok nk;j djus ls 4&5 o"kZ iwoZ lsA fdUrq mldk fookfnr ifjlj esa dCtk esa gksuk LFkkfir gSA vihykFkhZa ds lkf{k;ksa us vihykFkhZ ds lEcU/k esa dsoy dCtk ds ckcr gh lk{; nh gSA fdUrq mlds fdjk;snkj dh gSfl;r ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha nh gSA vihykFkhZ ds fookfnr ifjlj esa dCtk esa gksus ds rF; dks izR;FkhZ vkSeizdk'k ds }kjk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA blfy, bl lEcU/k esa fuf.kZr fof/k;ksa ds mYys[k dh vko';drk ugha jg tkrh gSA " 3. This appeal by the defendant No. 2 was admitted for consideration on 03.05.1995 while formulating the following as the substantial question of law:- "Whether the courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was the sub-tenant of deceased Nazar Singh ?" 4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties submitted in the first place that to the unconfirmed information available with them, probably the possession of the suit premises has been handed over by the appellant to the contesting respondents but then, both the learned counsel submitted that they were not in the position to make a precise and specific statement in that regard for want of complete instructions. 5. This appeal, filed in the year 1993 and relating to the civil suit filed way back in the year 1981, has remained pending for all these years; and having regard to the overall circumstances, while ignoring the submissions as noticed above, the matter has been considered on merits. 6. Upon taking up the matter on merits, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that the question as formulated does not arise for consideration in this case; and that this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The learned counsel contended that the concurrent findings on subletting as recorded by the subordinate Courts are based on proper and thorough appreciation of the evidence available on record and no such case of perversity is made out as to warrant interference by this Court in second appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has proved beyond doubt his possession on the suit premises even before the year 1972, i.e., prior to the death of Nazar Singh; and the theory of subletting of the property by Nazar Singh's son (Virendra Singh) to the appellant is completely ruled out. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant is sub-tenant; and the learned Courts below have erred in passing the decree for eviction on the ground of subletting. 8. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the appellant have their own shortcomings. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant is sub-tenant; and the learned Courts below have erred in passing the decree for eviction on the ground of subletting. 8. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the appellant have their own shortcomings. The learned subordinate Courts, with reference to the oral and documentary evidence, have categorically concluded that the appellant was a sub-tenant in the suit premises after finding that Sardar Nazar Singh was inducted as the tenant in the premises and, after him, rent was paid for some time by his adopted son Virendra Singh. The appellant did take the plea that he was not a sub-tenant but had taken the premises directly on rent from the plaintiff Om Prakash and had made the payment to the plaintiffs Om Prakash and Prakash Chand but then, no cogent evidence was adduced by the appellant to substantiate this plea. Such a plea having failed and Sardar Nazar Singh having been proved to be the tenant, the findings as recorded by the learned subordinate Courts on subletting cannot be said to suffering from any perversity or any error so as to warrant interference in this second appeal. 9. In view of the above, this second appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******