ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The counsel for the respondents is absent. 2. By the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice all the matters in which proceedings in the lower courts were stayed by the orders of this Court, have been notified in the cause list for 22.04.2016 and 23.04.2016. This matter been listed on as may as 11 occasions and it is more than 10 years old. In the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. 3. Having lost in two courts, the defendant questioned the judgment dated 30.07.2004 passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 01 of 1997/02 of 2004. The instant Second Appeal was admitted vide order dated 19.06.2006 when the following substantial question of law was formulated : "Whether learned Lower Appellate Court, having held in paragraph 19 that the tenant-appellant defaulted in payment of rent for the month of May, 1980, the tenant-appellant is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises for defaulting payment of rent of only one month, contrary to law, and whether the Court below illegally held the tenant-defendant as defaulter without assigning valid reason for holding the tenant-defendant-appellant defaulter for nonpayment of rent for two months, i.e., May and June, 1980? 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that for nonpayment of rent for one month, the tenant cannot be declared defaulter and thus, eviction cannot be ordered against such a tenant. The learned counsel refers to relevant portion of paragraph no. 19 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court which is extracted below : ".......... This court, therefore, holds opinion in the facts, circumstances and law that under the mandatory statutory provisions, the tenant (deft.) was under legal obligation to pay the rent of alleged month of May, 1980 strictly by 30th June, 1980. Admittedly this not been done in the present case by the tenant. Hence this court holds that on the admitted facts, the tenant (appellant) is defaulter in payment of rent for the month of May, 1980 and legally liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises." 6. Title (Eviction) Suit No. 14 of 1981 was instituted for eviction of the defendant namely, Md. Yunus and for a decree of arrears of rent of Rs. 420. Title (Eviction) Suit No. 14 of 1981 was instituted for eviction of the defendant namely, Md. Yunus and for a decree of arrears of rent of Rs. 420. The plaintiffs pleaded that the suit premises was let out to the defendant on monthly rental of Rs. 42/- w.e.f. 01.12.1966. Alleging that since May, 1980 the defendant did not pay rent and thus, a sum of Rs. 420 became due on account of arrears of rent, the plaintiff sent legal notice on 15.09.1980 asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.10.1980 and to pay the entire arrears of rent. The defendant contested the suit denying the knowledge that the plaintiff is actual owner of the suit premises. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues : (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) the plaintiff any cause of action and right to sue? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation? (iv) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (v) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant? (vi) Is the defendant a monthly tenant? (vii) Is the defendant defaulter in the eye of law from May, 1980? (viii) the plaintiff a bona fide need for the suit premises? (ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and for arrears of rent as claimed? 8. The trial court recorded a finding that the defendant is defaulter for non-payment of rent for May and June, 1980. 9. The powers of the first appellate court, while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 CPC, are well defined. An appellate court is the final court of fact and therefore, a full and independent consideration of the evidence by the appellate court is always desirable. In "Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by Lrs." (2001) 3 SCC 179 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "the judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court." 10. In "B.V. Nagesh & Anr. In "B.V. Nagesh & Anr. v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy" (2010) 13 SCC 530 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterating the principles laid down in earlier judgments of the Court observed as under: 4. "The appellate court jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings." 11. In the present case, the first appellate court discussed the evidence of the parties in detail. The discussion in paragraph no. 19 on which the appellant placed reliance is in respect of the manner in which payment for the month of May, 1980 was to be paid. Noticing that the rent of May, 1980 was not paid by the defendant by 30.06.1980, the appellate court held that the defendant is a defaulter. The real discussion on the issue of payment of rent for May and June, 1980 starts from paragraph no. 20 of the judgment which starts like this; "Let us discuss now - whether the defendant-tenant been able to prove payment of rents for the month of May and June,1980?" 12. After discussing the evidence led by the defendant, the appellate court held that the defendant failed to prove payment of rent for May and June, 1980 on 30.07.1980. 13. In view of the findings recorded by the first appellate court in paragraph no. 22 of the judgment, it must be held that substantial question of law formulated vide order dated 19.06.2006 does not arise in the case. 13. In view of the findings recorded by the first appellate court in paragraph no. 22 of the judgment, it must be held that substantial question of law formulated vide order dated 19.06.2006 does not arise in the case. The issue whether the defendant is a defaulter and thus, liable for eviction or not is concluded by concurrent findings of the two courts. I find no perversity in the impugned order dated 30.07.2004 passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 01 of 1997/02 of 2004. 14. In the result, the instant Second Appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. 15. Interim order dated 19.06.2006 stands vacated. 16. A copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court through FAX, forthwith. Appeal dismissed.