ORDER 1. As per office report, the second appeal is within limitation, therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed as not press. 2. Appellant defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2021 passed in civil suit appeal No. 7/2018 (20/2017) by the court of Additional District Judge, No.2 Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2017 passed in civil suit No.26/2009 by the court of Civil Judge, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur District whereby and whereunder a civil suit for rent and eviction filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed and the appellant-defendant has been directed to handover the vacant possession of the rented shop along with the arrears of rent @ Rs.425/-per month w.e.f. 1.7.2007 onwards till handing handover the possession. 3. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record. 4. It appears that both courts below have recorded a fact finding on the basis of rent note dated 1.11.1995 (Exhibit-1) that shop in question was let out by the respondent plaintiff to the appellant defendant. The defendant denied his tenancy in the rented shop but did not dispute his signatures on the rent note. The plaintiff himself appeared in evidence and produced one witness Mukesh Kumar as PW-2 to prove the execution of rent note as well as to show that the defendant is tenant of the plaintiff in the suit shop. The plaintiff further proved that since the defendant tenant stopped to pay rent after 30.6.2007, therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 10.12.2008 (Exhibit-2) through registered post asking for due arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of defendant. The notice was duly served upon the defendant and receipt of notice is not in dispute. It is not in dispute between parties that the suit shop is situated at Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur where at the time of institution of the present civil suit, provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 were not applicable. 5. In such backdrop of factual matrix, the civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017 which has been affirmed in first appeal vide Judgment and decree dated 3.9.2021. 6. 5. In such backdrop of factual matrix, the civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017 which has been affirmed in first appeal vide Judgment and decree dated 3.9.2021. 6. Counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the appellant does not press the second appeal, in respect of praying decree for eviction but he is assailing the impugned decree to the extent of granting arrears of rent. 7. Both the courts below concurrently have recorded a fact finding on the basis of rent note (Ex.1), That the defendant took the suit shop on rent from the plaintiff and is in possession of the suit shop as tenant, therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the rent. Further, the stand taken by the appellant-tenant before this court that he is not in possession, therefore he does not protect the decree for eviction, seems to be preposterous & unfair. Before both courts below, the defendant contested the plaintiff’s suit in respect of eviction as also against claim for arrears of rent. According to pleadings and material on record, the argument raised by the counsel for appellant before this court has no force and appellant cannot be absolved from his responsibility to pay arrears of rent as well when his tenancy is proved and he was not disputed his rent note. 8. In case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi [ (2016)3 SCC 78 ], the Apex Court held that even if finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on facts. 9. In the case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and ors. [ (2020)4 SCC 659 ], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. 10. 10. In another judgment reported as State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [ (2019)8 SCC 637 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Court held as under:- "16. When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose, J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors., AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43)." 11. In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts below, this court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgments, there is no force in the second appeal as no substantial question of law arises in the matter, hence the same is hereby dismissed. No Costs 12. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand(s) disposed of. 13. Decree be prepared accordingly.