ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal is arising out of dispute between the landlord and tenant. 3. Tenancy is admitted. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The finding has been returned by the trial court that on receipt of summons, tenant remitted five months rent at a time. It has been further recorded by the trial court that family of the landlord is joint family and apart from husband and wife, three married sons, one unmarried son, one unmarried daughter and three married daughters are in their family. It has been further recorded that there are some children also to the married sons. Thus, the family of landlord is a quite large and they are in need for more space for their residence. 4. In spite of above findings, the trial court has decided the issue against the landlord on the ground that the so-called five months remittance of rent was advance rent. So far as, the personal requirement is concerned, it has been stated that since some of the tenant has been removed so this will satisfied the requirement of the landlord. It has been further recorded by the trial court that three daughters are already married and they used to come occasionally so there is no requirement of any room for guest. Adopting this irrational reasoning, the trial court has returned this finding against the landlord. 5. Being aggrieved, landlord filed Title Appeal No. 134 of 2006. The Appellate Court has specifically framed two issues which are quoted hereunder:- (i). Whether the learned court below without appreciating the evidence on record properly has arrived at a conclusion that the defendant is not defaulter in payment of monthly rent and the plaintiffs does not require the tenanted premises reasonably for their personal necessity? (ii). Whether the learned court below while passing the impugned judgment has committed any material error, illegality or irregularity either in facts or law which requires any interference by this Court? 6. After evaluating the evidence as recorded by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that there is default in payment, which is evident from remittance of five month rent at a time. 7. 6. After evaluating the evidence as recorded by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that there is default in payment, which is evident from remittance of five month rent at a time. 7. So far as personal necessity is concerned, since landlord has large number of family members and the requirement of a landlord has to be decided by the landlord itself. 8. So, in fact the Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of trial court not by reversing the finding of fact rather on the basis of reasoning. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any flaw in the reasoning given by the Appellate Court. In fact there is concurrent finding of both the courts below, so far as the facts are concerned. 10. On the basis of finding recorded by both the courts below, view taken by the Appellate Court is more rational. Appellate Court has jurisdiction to take better view. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no substantial question of law in the present appeal. Accordingly the present second appeal is hereby dismissed. 12. I.A. No. 5869 of 2014 filed by the appellant for stay of the Execution Case No. 676 of 2014 is also dismissed.