JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Original Suit No. 82/1996 M/S Leelapat Mangatram Navin Mandi Sthal & Another v. U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti was dismissed by the judgment dated 28.07.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No.-5, Meerut. Against this judgment, Civil Appeal no. 203/012 M/S Leelapat Mangatram Navin Mandi Sthal & Another v. U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti was preferred which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No.-7 Meerut. Against these two judgments, plaintiffs of the original suit had preferred present second appeal. 2. Original suit was filed for following reliefs: - "¼v½& ;g fd U;k;ky; dh eSuMsVjh gqde bErukbZ dh fMxjh ds }kjk izfroknh dks oknhx.k ds fgr esa ;g funZs'k fn;k tkos fd izfroknh us o"kZ 1986 ls vc rd ;k vk;s rd tks Hkh fdjk;k 505@& ¼ikWap lkS : i;k½s izfrekg oknh ls vf/kd fy;k gS fd /kujk'kh dks vfxze fdjk;s o yhteuh dh /kujk'kkh esa U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ vof/k ds vUnj ,MtsLV dj ysa U;k;ky; }kjk nh x;h vof/k esa izfroknh }kjk ,slk uk djus dk fLFfr esa U;k;ky; Lo;a oknhx.k }kjk vf/kd nh xbZ fdjk;s dh /kujkf'k dks vfxze fdjk;s o yht euh esa ,MtsLV djk;s A ¼c½& ;g fd U;k;ky; dh gqdqe bErukbZ dh fMxjh ds }kjk oknhx.k ds fgr esa izfroknh ds fo: ) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkRed vkKk bl vkns'k ls izlkfjr dh tkos fd izfroknh] oknhx.k ls nqdku la[;k&v&1 ,0 Dykl uohu lCth e.Mh LFky nsgyh jksM esjB dk fdjk;k 415@&¼pkj lkS iUnzg : i;s½s izfrekg dh nj ls vf/kd olwy uk djsaA ¼l½& ;g fd okn dk O;; oknh dks izfroknh ls fnyk;k tkos A ¼n½& ;g fd vU; izfrdkj tks U;k;ky; oknh ds fgr esa mfpr le>rs fo: ) izfroknh oknh dks iznku fd;s tkos A" 3. After accepting written statement from the defendant, the trial court had framed issues, accepted evidences of the parties and thereafter passed the judgment dated 28.07.2012 by which suit was dismissed with the finding that the rate of rent of disputed shop, in which plaintiff is tenant of defendant, is Rs. 920/- per month,and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove its plaint case of lesser rate of rent. In first appeal, this finding of trial court was confirmed. 920/- per month,and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove its plaint case of lesser rate of rent. In first appeal, this finding of trial court was confirmed. The first appellate court had appreciated the facts, circumstances, evidences and thereafter gave finding that at the time of entering into agreement of tenancy, the plaintiff had executed agreement in which rate of monthly rent was agreed between the parties to be Rs. 920/- per month. The first appellate court had also given finding of fact that this plaint case is not proved that defendant/respondent cannot enhance the rent. The finding was that the admitted rent of disputed shop is Rs. 920/- per month. On the basis of these findings, first appellate court had dismissed the first appeal by its judgment dated 21.07.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that defendant/respondent is a public body of the Government, which realizes lesser rent from other tenants of similar adjacent shops. Therefore plaintiffs has fundamental right to equality to claim parity with other co-tenants and they should also be held entitled to pay lesser rent like other co-tenants. He also contended that both the courts below had not considered these points as well as available evidences and passed the erroneous judgments. Therefore this appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 5. This has been proved through evidences that at the time of entering into tenancy, the plaintiffs-appellants had executed an agreement with defendant-respondent in which they had agreed that the prospective rate of rent of shop in question will be Rs. 920/- per month. After written contract to this effect they were admitted in shop in question as tenant. Admittedly, thereafter they had been paying rent at this rate to the respondent; but later on they had instituted original suit with above mentioned reliefs. The original suit and the appeals filed by plaintiffs/appellants amount to attempt to retraction of their previous admissions. This amount to backing up from the contract on the basis of which they had got tenancy rights and got possession of disputed shop as tenant of defendant/respondent. The defendant/respondent had acted on admission of appellants about rate of rent accepted by appellants and admitted them as tenant. Now appellants are estopped from retracting their admission. Apparently the claim of plaintiffs-appellants through present proceeding is barred by Indian Evidence Act bars the claim of appellants. 6. The defendant/respondent had acted on admission of appellants about rate of rent accepted by appellants and admitted them as tenant. Now appellants are estopped from retracting their admission. Apparently the claim of plaintiffs-appellants through present proceeding is barred by Indian Evidence Act bars the claim of appellants. 6. The only dispute between the parties is not about any legal point but about the fact that as to whether the rate of rent of Rs. 920/- per month being realized by respondent from appellants is excessive or not. 7. On examination of the reasonings recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court are well reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law is involved in the case before this Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference by exercise of appellate jurisdiction of Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 CPC. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs can be sustained. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The second appeal is dismissed.