JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6/2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajgarh in Civil Suit No. 272/1993 whereby both the courts below have decreed the suit for eviction in relation to shop in question. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this second appeal are that plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for eviction against Prabhu Dayal, deceased defendant -tenant on the ground that tenant has converted the shop into Godown for storing the vegetables and also on the ground of reasonable and bona-fide necessity of Ramakant grand-son of plaintiff for carrying the business of selling seeds. The appellants defendant filed a written statement that they have not changed the user of the shop and denying the necessity of Ramkant, suit was decreed by the court below and appeal has also been dismissed, hence this second appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on admission and perused the judgments and decree under appeal. 4. The contention of the present appellants is that the appellate court has erred in holding that they have changed the user of the property, the Commissioner report has been misread by the court below, he is still using the disputed shop as it is a commercial premise and he has not changed the user. As regards necessity, his contention is that by the Will (Ex-2), plaintiff is the owner of four properties out of which two shops are lying vacant with the land lord, hence if any necessity is there for Ramakant, he can start his business in other properties. It has also been contended that he has no other shop and comparative hardship would be in his favour, if he has to vacate the property. Other shops which have been shown to be in his tenancy are in his possession prior to the taking of the disputed shop on rent.Per contra, the contention of the counsel for the respondent is that both the courts below have concurrently held that defendant had changed the user of the shop and need of the plaintiff is found to be genuine one and looking to the concurrent findings of fact, this second appeal is not maintainable. All the objections which have been raised by the appellants are in regard to factual finding and cannot be interfered, correct inference has been drawn by the courts below, there is no case of over reading or misreading of the evidence and no perversity has been shown in the findings. 5. As regards change of user, courts below have held that the present appellants has changed the use of property from shop to Godown and reliance has been placed by the respondent on Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Noor Mohd. Sheikh Mussa & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 3866 wherein it has been held that use of premises from office to Godown amounts to change of user. Both the courts below have considered the evidence of both the parties and concurrent findings has been recorded by the courts below, hence in the limited scope under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact of the courts below could not be disturbed unless any perversity has been shown. It has been stated that Commissioner Report has been misread. Commissioner report has been considered but apart from Commissioner Report, oral evidence and evidence of photos have also been considered, hence there is no perversity in the finding of fact recorded by the courts below. 6. The other contention of the present appellants is that he has obtained the vacant possession of another land in 1974 whereas admittedly, present shop has been taken on rent on 28.4.75 hence prior to taking of the present premises on rent, he was having the other shop hence this does not give any right of eviction to the land lord. The appellate Court has not passed the decree on the above grounds, hence contentions of appellants are insignificant.As regards, bona-fide necessity of the land lord, both the courts below have concurrently held that need is bona-fide and issue of comparative hardship and partial eviction has also been decided in favour of land lord. The contention of the appellant is that by Will, the land lord has acquired ownership of four shops and when other shops are available, there is no need for getting eviction of the disputed property. 7. The respondent has submitted that ownership cannot be decided in the suit for eviction and reliance has been placed on Nagendra v. Jahoor Khan & Anr., RLR 1995(2) 627 . 7. The respondent has submitted that ownership cannot be decided in the suit for eviction and reliance has been placed on Nagendra v. Jahoor Khan & Anr., RLR 1995(2) 627 . The Will has been placed as Ex.2, but it only proves the ownership of the property whether vacant possession of the same is available with the land lord, is a question of fact which has been answered concurrently by both the courts below and law is settled on the issue that only on substantial questions of law, second appeal could be entertained and reliance has been placed on Anamika Roy v. Jatindra Chowrasiya & ors., (2013) 6 SCC 270 and Ellangallur & ors. v. Gopalan & ors., AIR 2000 SC 533 , the appellant could not show any perversity in the findings of court below which can be termed as unsupported by evidence or unacceptable inference has been drawn. Reliance has been placed on Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 , the respondent has also relied upon Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 wherein it has been held categorically that whether courts below on proper appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion, High Court in second appeal cannot reappraisal the evidence and matter could not be considered as a third trial on facts. 8. In the light of the above, the counsel for the appellants is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments so as to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below.The counsel for the appellants has prayed that a reasonable time be allowed to vacate the premises. Counsel for the respondent has left the matter at the discretion of the court. In view of the matter that premises is used for commercial purpose, six months time is allowed to the appellants to vacate the premises.No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******