JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 read with Section 103 CPC has been filed against the judgment/order dated 19.12.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar in Appeal No.83/2009 (100/2009) whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2009 passed by Civil Judge (SD) Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar in Regular Civil Suit No.14/2004 has been confirmed and the eviction decree has been passed against the appellant. 2. The short facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent in connection with shop situated in Nayama Bajar Laxmangarh, Sikar. The property was rented to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 501/- per month on 01/01/2000. The defendant failed to deposit the rent from 01/01/2002 and a notice has been served through registered post by which the defendant was asked to vacate the suit premises uptil the midnight of 31/07/2003. Notice was received by the defendant and he gave reply on 1.7.2003 but premises has not been vacated. Hence, the suit has been filed. 3. The contention of the appellant-defendant was that shop was rented to him on 01/09/1988 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and thereafter, the rent of the shop was increased on 01/01/2000 and in spite of the contention of the appellant, the suit has been decreed against him and the appeal preferred by the appellant has also been dismissed. Hence, this second appeal. 4. Contention of the appellant is that the court below has ignored the fact that tenancy has started from 01/09/1988 and as no particular period of tenancy was given at that time and terms mentioned in rent deed dated 01/09/1988 are not annulled. In District Sikar, there is practice prevalent for tenancy from year to year and six month's notice for termination of tenancy is mandatory but court below has not considered the contention of the appellant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 6. The first contention of the appellant that court below has ignored the fact that tenancy has started from 01/09/1988 but the finding of the courts below goes to show that rent deed Ex. 1 has been proved by the respondent and appellant has also admitted the signature on the same and rent note Ex.1 is admitted on the fact that tenancy has started from 01/01/2000 and rent is Rs. 501/-. 1 has been proved by the respondent and appellant has also admitted the signature on the same and rent note Ex.1 is admitted on the fact that tenancy has started from 01/01/2000 and rent is Rs. 501/-. Then all contentions in this regard are futile and even this issue is a question of fact which can not be agitated in the second appeal. 7. The other contention of the appellant that there is practice in Sikar District to give shops on rent from year to year but no such practice has been pleaded or proved before the court below. The appellant is not entitled to raise any new plea in this second appeal so also issue as regard fact can not be considered in second appeal looking to the limited scope provided under section 100 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any illegibility or perversity in the impugned judgment so as to call for any interference with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the courts below. The issues which have been raised by the appellant are the issues relating to question of facts and looking the concurrent findings of the fact of the courts below, no interference is needed.In view of the above, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as it does not involve any substantial question of law and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******