JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. The appellant plaintiff has preferred this second appeal to challenge judgment and decree dated 28.11.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Sirohi (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), whereby the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D), Sheoganj (for short, 'learned trial Court') in the suit for eviction and arrears of rent. 2. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, as many as seven issues were framed by the learned trial court. The plaintiff respondent as well as appellant defendant examined oral as well as documentary evidence. 3. After conclusion of the evidence of rival parties, learned trial Court while deciding the issues against the appellant-defendant and in favour of respondent-plaintiff, decreed the suit in favour of respondent plaintiff and directed the defendant to vacate the premises within a period of two months from the date of judgment and it was further ordered that plaintiff will be entitled to Rs. 4,356/- and Rs. 121/- per month as mesne profit from the defendant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that judgment of the courts below are based on surmises and conjectures and learned trial court has erred in not appreciating the fact of adverse possession of the appellant over the premises. It is argued that it has clearly come on record and due to pressure made by the respondent plaintiff though in the first instance, the appellant defendant vacated the premises and taken his house hold articles for purpose of shifting at another place but when he could not get the accommodation, then he was left with no option but to come again in the said premises and this fact is corroborated by the evidence of DW/2 Ummed Mal, relative of the appellant and thus, the possession over the premises in question cannot be ignored. It is further argued that since there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the respondent plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant defendant. It is further argued that since there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the respondent plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Des raj and ors v. Bhagat Ram (dead) by LRs and ors reported in (2007) 9 SCC 641 , ‘M.B. Ramesh by Lrs v. K.M Veeraje URS by LRs and ors’ reported in 2013 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 38, ‘Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and anr reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 and ‘Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Sheshamal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argued that it is settled proposition of law that once a tenant is always a tenant and moreover, there is concurrent finding of two courts below, therefore, the appellant defendant is not justified in seeking the implementation of doctrine of adverse possession. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts below. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned judgments, it is amply clear that both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact against the appellant. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desraj (Supra) has categorically observed in Para 28 & 29 as under :- “28. We are also not oblivious of a recent decision of this Court in Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar and ors. [ 2006 (11) SCALE 452 ] wherein it was held: "In order to oust by way of adverse possession, one has to lead definite evidence to show that to the hostile interest of the party that a person is holding possession and how that can be proved will depend on facts of each case" 29. Yet again in T. Anjanappa and others v. Somalingappa and another [ (2006) 7 SCC 570 ], it was held: The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property.” 10. In the matter in hand, it is specific case of the plaintiff that premises, particulars of which is mentioned in para 2 of the plaint was let out to the defendant appellant and defendant committed default in payment of rent. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a notice dated 03.08.2004 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. In reply, the defendant appellant has stated that he was tenant of the premises in question and lastly when plaintiff refused to accept the rent, on 24.08.1988 he deposited the same in the court under Section 19(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The defendant appellant admitting the title of the plaintiff respondent took the premises on rent and recognized the status of plaintiff respondent as landlord of the property in question. 11. In view of above, it cannot be said that the appellant defendant had no knowledge about the rights of the plaintiff respondent. Once the appellant defendant acknowledged the title and status of the plaintiff respondent as landlord, the appellant defendant is estopped from raising the contention that the appellant acquired title by adverse possession regarding the property in question. It is further settled principle of law that jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is to be exercised by this Court with great care and circumspection and normally this Court is not obliged to re-appreciate the evidence and materials available on record. Appreciation of evidence is only permissible when finding of fact is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, or dehors the law. No such situation is available in the instant case. Appreciation of evidence is only permissible when finding of fact is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, or dehors the law. No such situation is available in the instant case. Moreover, substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant are not satisfying the requirement within the four corners of Section 100 CPC. Resultantly, appeal fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.