JUDGMENT Raghvendra Kumar, J. -- Heard Sri Shri Prakash Singh, Advocate holdig brief of Sri D. P. Singh, one of the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was tenant of the premises in dispute on rent @ Rs.221 per annum. It has further been submitted that the defendants are taking recourse to the otherwise measures to vacate the premises in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that some time be given to the plaintiff-appellant for vacating the premises in dispute. 3. Initially an Original Suit No.711 of 2003 was instituted before the District Court, Kanpur Nagar with a relief of prohibitory injunction against the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, which has been dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (J. D.) Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 29.9.2008. Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, a first appeal was preferred on behalf of the appellant and the appeal was numbered as 117 of 2008, which too was dismissed vide order dated 21.9.2016 by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.52, Kanpur Nagar. Being aggrieved by the judgments of the Courts below, the instant Second Appeal is before this Court. 4. Admittedly, the plaintiff was the employee of the Nagar Nigam and who superannuated on 31.5.2002. After critical appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by a reasoned and speaking order. The First Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal after critical scrutiny of the pleadings, evidence and the judgment of the trial Court. As per the judgments of the Courts below, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his claim through its pleadings and the evidence available on the record. The plaintiff has failed to establish his lawful authority to continue in the possession of the premises in dispute even after superannuation and, accordingly, the orders were passed by the Courts below. The appellant-plaintiff has failed to point out any error in the findings of facts or law in the judgments of the Courts below. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not appear to be perverse nor it is a case of misreading of evidence nor the findings have been recorded in the absence of evidence. 5. There appears no justification to interfere in the judgments of the Courts below. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not appear to be perverse nor it is a case of misreading of evidence nor the findings have been recorded in the absence of evidence. 5. There appears no justification to interfere in the judgments of the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for adjudication. 6. So far as the plea of giving some time to the plaintiff-appellant for vacating the premises in dispute is concerned, this argument cannot be sustained considering the period elapsed from the date of his superannuation to till date. 7. The Second Appeal is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.