Judgment 1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by appellant-defendant-tenant assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2016 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.43/2013 by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar whereby and whereunder dismissing the appeal and affired the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.89/2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Dataramgarh, Sikar whereby and whereunder the civil suit for rent and eviction filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed. 2. Heard learned counsel for appellant, perused the impugned judgments and record. 3. It is not in dispute that the suit property is a residential in nature and situated at Bay, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar and is in tenancy of the appellant-defendant. The respondent-plaintiff alleging his necessity of the rented property, terminated the tenancy of defendant vide notice dated 15.08.2009. Plaintiff also claimed due rent w.e.f. 20.05.2008 @Rs.200/- per month. The defendant has not disputed the receipt of notice but had denied the alleged necessity of plaintiff and termination of his tenancy. 4. The trial court, vide judgment dated 09.11.2011 decided issue Nos.1 and 2 with the fact finding that the plaintiff is in bona fide and reasonable need of the rented premises and the tenancy of defendant has been terminated by way of serving a legal notice dated 15.08.2009. Further the trial court also held that the defendant has not paid rent since 20.05.2008, therefore allowed the arrears of rent w.e.f 20.05.2008 and passed the decree for eviction. The trial court also allowed the mesne profit from the date of notice for termination of the tenancy i.e. 15.08.2009. 5. Appellant-defendant assailed the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 by filing civil first appeal. The first appellate court, after re-appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the fact finding recorded by the trial court that by serving legal notice dated 15.08.2009 the tenancy of defendant-tenant has been terminated. It is not in dispute that at the time of filing of the suit, the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 were not applicable on the rented property situated at Bay, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar. 6. The instant second appeal was preferred on 24.6.2016. There is no stay order on the execution of the impugned decree. It is not in dispute that at the time of filing of the suit, the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 were not applicable on the rented property situated at Bay, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar. 6. The instant second appeal was preferred on 24.6.2016. There is no stay order on the execution of the impugned decree. On the last date i.e. on 31.10.2022, the second appeal was listed, the counsel for appellant sought time to confirm as to whether the execution of the impugned decree has taken place or not. Today he submits that he has not get any information from his client. 7. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and concurrent findings of fact in respective of termination of the tenancy of appellant-defendant by way of serving legal notice dated 15.08.2009, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. 8. The counsel for appellant could not point out any perversity on the part of courts below in recording findings which are based on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. In absence of only perversity or when findings are neither based on surmises and conjunctures nor the same give rise to any substantial questions of law. Substantial questions of law is sine-qua-non to exercise the jurisdiction of high court under Section 100 of CPC. 9. 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. 10. In case of 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 de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Hon'ble Court held as under:- "16. The Hon'ble 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 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. 12. 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 13. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. 14. Record be sent back.