JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Under challenge in this second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2017 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Appeal No. 263/2009 (7/2007) dismissing the first regular appeal under Section 96 CPC filed by the plaintiff and affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sawai Madhopur in Civil Regular Suit No. 74/1995, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter plaintiff) for recovery of rent and eviction of the defendant-respondent (hereafter the defendant) from the suit property was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff Thakur Ji Ram Chandra Ji Navgrah Ji through its purported Manager Kailash Chand, Hari Shankar sons of Chhitar Mal filed a suit in the year 1995 for recovery of rent and eviction against the defendant before Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sawai Madhopur. It was the plaintiff’s case that forefathers of Kailash Chand and Hari Shankar had a private temple in new Market, Chhatri Bajar, Sawai Madhopur. On the western side of the main gate of the said temple a south facing shop under the ownership and possession of the temple was let out by the plaintiffs to the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. It was stated that the defendant did not pay the rent effective 1.1.1992. Further the defendant was running a confectionery business in the tenanted shop wherefrom nuisance by way of pollution was caused to the detriment of the pilgrims and worshipers visiting the plaintiff’s private temple. 3. The defendant filed a written statement of denial. It was denied that the shop in their possession was let out by Kailash Chand, Hari Shankar or their forefathers. It was the defendant’s case that the suit shop had been let out by Gurjar Gaur (Gautam) Brahmin Samaj to his forefathers and the rent thereof was now being paid by him as the successor to Gurjar Gaur (Gautam) Brahmin Samaj. The defendant altogether denied relationship as a tenant with Kailash Chand, Hari Shankar and stated that they had no right as landlord or otherwise over the suit property. The defendant further stated that Kailash Chand, Hari Shankar had filed a civil suit against him as also the managers of the temple with regard to the suit property, wherein they inter-alia sought the relief of payment of rent to them. The defendant further stated that Kailash Chand, Hari Shankar had filed a civil suit against him as also the managers of the temple with regard to the suit property, wherein they inter-alia sought the relief of payment of rent to them. With the said suit a temporary injunction application filed had been dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, 12 issues were framed by the trial court. 5. Issue no. 1 was whether relationship of landlord and tenant was established between plaintiff and defendant qua the property in dispute? From the evidence laid by the parties, the trial court on its appreciation thereof found that no documentary evidence viz. Rent deed etc. was produced on behalf of plaintiffs which could evidence that the suit property was let out by them to the forefathers of the defendant or to the defendant himself. It was also found by the trial court that a Suit No. 46/1994 titled Murti Mandir Thakur Ji vs. Chiranji Lal and Others was also decided on the same day i.e. 12.10.2006, whereunder in issue no. 1, it was held that Kailash Chand, Hari Shankar and their forefathers for that matter were not the owners of the suit property, and instead the ownership of suit property vested in deity consecrated in temple, which was managed by the Gurjar Gaur Brahmin Samaj, Sawai Madhopur. So holding, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiffs preferred regular Civil First Appeal under Section 96 CPC, which was dismissed on 6.2.2017. 6. Hence this second appeal. 7. Mr. Hemant Sharma, counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are perverse as from the evidence on record, it was amply clear that relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs or their forefathers and the forefathers of the defendant and by extension with the defendant claiming through them was established. In support of his submission Mr. Hemant Sharma required to court to peruse the evidence. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. Admittedly no document was submitted by the plaintiffs before the trial court showing that the suit shop had been let out on rent by them or the forefathers to the defendant. No receipt of rent was either exhibited in evidence. In support of his submission Mr. Hemant Sharma required to court to peruse the evidence. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. Admittedly no document was submitted by the plaintiffs before the trial court showing that the suit shop had been let out on rent by them or the forefathers to the defendant. No receipt of rent was either exhibited in evidence. On the contrary, DW-1 Prahlad categorically stated in his statement before the trial court that the suit shop had been taken on rent by his forefathers from Gurjar Gaur (Gautam) Brahmin Samaj. Further in the regular Civil Suit No. 46/1994 titled Mandir Murti Thakur Ji vs. Chiranji Lal and Others, decided on the same day i.e. 12.10.2006, it was held that plaintiff Hari Shankar and Kailash and their forefathers were not the owners of the temple in question or its property and conversely the ownership of the disputed property vested in the deity consecrated in temple. It was also held by the trial court that management of the temple from the evidence before it was clearly being looked after by Gurjar Gaur Brahmin Samaj, Sawai Madhopur and hence no landlord-tenant relationship having been established, as was the burden of the plaintiff purportedly to be the landlord, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. This finding has been affirmed on appeal as recorded above. The impugned judgments of the courts below are based on findings of fact on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law is made out in this appeal under Section 100 CPC. 10. The second appeal filed by the plaintiffs is therefore dismissed in limine.