JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated dated 3.1.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi in Civil First Appeal No. 65/2011 whereby the appellate court has affirmed the decree of the trial court dated 30.1.2003 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Bundi in Civil Suit No. 370/92 by which suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed against the present appellant. 2. The short facts of the case are that plaintiffs respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent that he is owner of the land and land has been rented to the appellant. The contention of the appellant was that he himself has constructed the shop and land belongs to Municipal Board, there is no sell or lease deed in favour of plaintiffs, the municipality is taking steps for recovery and penalty from the appellant. The learned trial court decreed the suit and appeal has also been dismissed, hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the appellant is that respondents are not the owner of the land, he had never paid rent to the respondents, no notice for demand of rent has been served upon him, incomplete document Ex.1 has been relied upon by courts below which has not been proved by the evidence of the plaintiffs, it does not contain the signature of the appellant as per requirement of Ex.1, stamp deed has never been executed. He had not rendered any account of construction to the respondent. Court below has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. The findings are per verse. His documents Ex.A/4 and A/5 has not been considered so also his oral evidence DW/2 Israeil, DW/3 Jagannath, DW/4 Chittarlal, DW/5 Shabbir Ahmed and DW/6 Gul Mohd., has not been discussed, hence the findings of the court below is liable to be set aside.Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that suit has been filed on behalf of Arya Samaj, the respondents are not having any personal interest, there is no perversity in the findings of the courts below, Ex. 1 has been proved by the evidence of plaintiffs. 1 has been proved by the evidence of plaintiffs. Looking to the concurrent findings of fact no interference is needed, nothing has been shown that the courts below has misread or misinterpreted the evidence or material evidence has not been considered and if any other view could be formed by considering the evidence, it is not the scope of Section 100 CPC. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal so also the original record of the case. 5. The case of the respondents before the court below was that he has rented the premises to the appellant and Ex.1 document on which a proposal has been accepted, has been placed on record. The contention of the appellant is that PW/1 Bhanwarlal Rathore has not proved the document and mere marking a document would not prove the document and reliance has been placed on Sait Tarajee Khimchand & ors. v. Yelamarti Satyam & ors., AIR 1971 SC 1865 . There is no dispute about this legal proposition that marking a document as Exhibit is different from proving the document but here in the present case, PW/1 Bhanwarlal Rathore has stated that Ex.1 contains signatures of Parmatma Sahay before whom the application has been submitted and it was considered by the Arya Samaj and on the same conditions it was let out to appellant on which the property has been let out to Herbel Singh. Rent agreement regarding Herbel Singh has also been placed on record as Ex.2. It is true that PW/1 Bhanwarlal Rathore has stated that Ex.1 was not presented before him and no rent has been paid by the appellant and even account as regards construction has also not been furnished to them and document also does not contain his signatures but apart from this, PW/2 Jaidev Sahni has stated that it contains his signatures and proceedings have been undertaken before him as regards letting the property to the appellant and PW/3 Mohanlal Sharma has amply proved the document wherein it is stated that he written 'Ka se Kha' endorsement on the document and it also bears his signatures, thereafter on 13.3.83, resolution has been passed which has been written by him ranging 'E to F' and it also contains his signatures 'M to N'. He has further stated that on that day, the appellant was not present and his brother Dayanand Chaturvedi was there and he has also put his signatures before him as 'K to L'. Defendant also has submitted that he is having good relations with his brother Dayanand Chaturvedi and as regards 'K to L' signature, he has not denied the signatures but an evasive reply has been given that he does not know whether these signatures are of Dayanand Chaturvedi or not inspite of the fact that he categorically has stated that he can identify the signatures of Dayanand. As regards contention regarding allegation of taking premises on rent, he has not denied the fact and again an evasive reply has been given that he does not know about this fact. Other documents Ex. 3 and 4 has also been considered by the court below hence the contention of the present appellant that Ex. 1 was not proved is not sustainable. 6. It is true that there is no evidence on behalf of respondents that rent was ever paid to them or any notice has been served on the appellant but when Ex.1 has been proved, the fact of tenancy has been rightly held by both the courts below in favour of respondents. Further, it has been stated that Ex.4 and 5 and witnesses of the defendants have not been considered. As regards Ex.4 and 5, suffice it to say that these are not material documents to be considered as there is no evidence that they relate to the disputed property. A bare reading of above two documents speak that they are in relation to Jai Iron Industries and DW/1 Dhruv Chaturvedi has stated in his cross-examination that he maintains the accounts of Jai Iron Industries but he has not kept the account of this shop in account of Jai Iron Industries, meaning thereby that Jai Iron Industries and disputed shops are two different premises hence Ex.4 and 5 carry no weight. Statement of DW/1 Dhruv Chaturvedi has been considered by both the courts below and other witnesses has only corroborated the statement of DW/1 and when statement of DW/1 Dhruv Chaturvedi has been considered and rejected then statement of other witnesses are of no utility and non consideration of the same does not effect the merits of the case. 7. Statement of DW/1 Dhruv Chaturvedi has been considered by both the courts below and other witnesses has only corroborated the statement of DW/1 and when statement of DW/1 Dhruv Chaturvedi has been considered and rejected then statement of other witnesses are of no utility and non consideration of the same does not effect the merits of the case. 7. The counsel for the appellants has relied upon Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 and Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through LRs v. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs (2000) 1 SCC 434 and Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (2011) 1 SCC 673 where scope of Section 100 CPC has been explained. Here in the present case, nothing has been shown that the Court has ignored any material evidence or has drawn such wrong inference which vitiates the whole findings or burden of proof has been casted wrongly. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding on the fact that the present appellant is tenant in the premises. The appellant has not proved the fact that he has taken the premises from municipal council and documentary as well as oral evidence has been considered, some minor inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses has been pointed out which is natural when the witnesses are examined after lapse of many years and respondent has relied on Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty, AIR 1996 SC 3521 wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence by the High Court just to replace the findings of the court below is not proper. It is possible that another view may be made by re-appreciation of evidence but to reach a different conclusion, the High Court should not appreciate the evidence. Here in the present case, seeing from any angle there seems to be no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below. The counsel for the appellant could not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******