JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 30/05/2014, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (Karauli) (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 12/2014 whereby, the appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and decree dated 28/03/2014 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Hindaun City (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in civil suit No. 35/2009 and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and permanent injunction wherein, it is stated that the defendant is the tenant of a shop described in para No. 1 of the plaint since 01/01/1991 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The rent was being enhanced from time to time, and is being paid @ Rs. 500/- per month since 01/01/2008. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground of sub-letting, nuisance and personal necessity. It is stated that the tenancy in question was duly terminated by notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act') Ex.-1 dated 03/07/2009 which was duly served on the appellant-defendant on 04/07/2009 and the same was replied to by the appellant-defendant on 27/07/2014. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant-defendant by filing the written statement, in which he admitted the tenancy and denied the other allegations made in the plaint. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. S.C. Gupta, has submitted that he is not pressing both the substantial questions of law as framed on page No. 7 of the memo of appeal. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is that the respondent-plaintiff has waived the notice given by him under Section 111 (h) of the Act impliedly by accepting the rent which became due in respect of the property since the expiration of the notice and as such, the respondent-plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of eviction under Section 111 (h) read with Section 106 of the Act, in view of the provisions of Section 113 of the Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon (1998) DLT 493 Kanta Manocha v. M/s. Hindustan Paper Corpn and 2004 (1) CHN, Calcutta High Court. 5. In support of his contention, he relied upon (1998) DLT 493 Kanta Manocha v. M/s. Hindustan Paper Corpn and 2004 (1) CHN, Calcutta High Court. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that this ground has not been taken in the appeal and in view of Order 42, Rule 2 , the appellant-defendant is not entitled to raise this objection during the course of argument first time in second appeal. He further submits that both the Courts below concurrently held that the tenancy was duly determined by giving the notice under Section 106 of the Act to the defendant. After expiry of the notice, the position of the appellant-defendant was that of a trespasser. He further submits that no substantial question is involved in this appeal. In support of his contention he relied upon 2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 262 Smt. Nirmala Devi & ors. v. Smt. Tulsi Devi. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and perused the record carefully. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has not pressed both the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. So far as the notice given by the plaintiff under Section 106 of the Act is concerned, both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the said notice conforms to the requirement of the the said provisions and hence, tenancy of appellant-defendant was validly determined. From the perusal of the record, I find no illegality or perversity in the conclusions recorded by the courts below. So far as argument about waiver of notice, impliedly by accepting the rent is concerned, it was neither raised in the trial Court nor in the first appellate Court. Rather, it has been raised for the first time during the course of argument in the second appeal. Even in the memo of appeal this ground has not been taken up. The ground urged by the learned counsel during argument is a pure question of fact which cannot be analysed & adjudged at the stage of second appeal. 8. In view of this, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned Judgments and Decrees passed by both the Courts. Both the Courts below have considered all the factual & legal aspects in the right prospective, the findings recorded by them hence, do not require any interference. 8. In view of this, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned Judgments and Decrees passed by both the Courts. Both the Courts below have considered all the factual & legal aspects in the right prospective, the findings recorded by them hence, do not require any interference. The learned counsel, Mr. S.C. Gupta, for the appellants has also failed to point out any substantial question of law being involved in the present appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******