JUDGMENT 1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by appellant-defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 32/2005 by the District Judge, Baran (Raj.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.89/2004 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. D.) Baran (Raj.) whereby and whereunder the plaintiff’s suit for eviction has been decreed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgments. 3. It appears from the record that in respect of the rented premises measuring 30 X 25 feet comprising one room and tin shaded portion situated at Baran, one eviction suit was filed way back on 23.11.1992 alleging inter alia that the rented premises was taken on rent prior to five years ago from the respondentplaintiff-Society. The premises was alleged to be taken on rent by one Prabhu Lal who later on passed away and her mother Ramnathi Bai (defendant No.1) sublet the rented premises to one Dinesh Chand (defendant No.2). It was pleaded that the rented premises is required bonafidely and reasonably for personal use of plaintiff- Society and therefore, the suit was preferred on the ground of bona fide necessity and subletting under the provisions of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. 4. Appellant-defendant submitted his written statement and contended that he is not sub-tenant but is adopted son of defendant No.1 and the ground of necessity and subletting were denied. 5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of both parties, decided issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 with observation that the tenancy of rented premises is not in dispute and it is proved that the rented premises is required by the plaintiff-Society for its own purposes. The original tenant Prabhu Lal has passed away, his mother Ramnathi Bai has subletted the rented premises to defendant No.2-Dinesh Chand who is in exclusive possesion. The plea of defendant No.2 that he is adopted son of defendant No.1 was not found proved. With such findings, the decree for eviction was passed on the ground of bona fide necessity and subletting vide judgment dated 16.04.2005. 6. Appellant-defendant, by way of first appeal, assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2005. The plea of defendant No.2 that he is adopted son of defendant No.1 was not found proved. With such findings, the decree for eviction was passed on the ground of bona fide necessity and subletting vide judgment dated 16.04.2005. 6. Appellant-defendant, by way of first appeal, assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2005. The first appellate court re-considered and re-heard the entire matter as a whole and concurred with fact findings in respect of bona fide necessity and subletting and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007, affirming the decree for eviction dated 16.04.2005. 7. It appears that though during the course of first appeal, appellant-defendant raised an argument that the respondentplaintiff has issued a notice to auction the suit property, therefore, the necessity alleged by the plaintiff may not be treated as bona fide and reasonable but such argument was not corroborated by any evidence, therefore such arguments do not find his favour. 8. Both courts below have considered the evidence on record as a whole and recorded a fact finding that the rented premises is required bonafidely and reasonably to the respondent-plaintiff Society and is in exclusive possession of the appellant who has been held as sub-tenant. Such fact findings do not suffer from any perversity, infirmity or misreading/non-reading of evidence nor are against settled principle of law. 9. The counsel for appellant could not point out any perversity on the part of courts below in recording fact findings on the issue of bona fide necessity and sub-letting. In absence of any perversity in the fact finding, the same do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Substantial questions of law are sine- qua-non to exercise the jurisdiction of high court under Section 100 of CPC. 10. In the case of Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bros and Anr. [ (1998) 6 SCC 748 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the issue related to bona fide and personal necessity of rented premises is purely based on appreciation of evidence and is a question of fact and such issue does not give rise to any substantial question of law within the scope of Section 100 of CPC. 11. Few judgments propounded the ratio decidendi deal with the issue of subletting may be taken into consideration. In case of Ram Murti Devi Vs. Pushpa Devi and Ors. 11. Few judgments propounded the ratio decidendi deal with the issue of subletting may be taken into consideration. In case of Ram Murti Devi Vs. Pushpa Devi and Ors. Reported in [ (2017) 15 SCC 230 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the event, possession of the sub-tenant wholly or partly is proved and the particulars and the instances of the transactions are found acceptable, it is not impermissible for the court to draw an inference that the transaction was entered for monetary consideration. 12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of A Mahalakshmi Vs. Bala Venkatram Reported in [ (2020) 2 SCC 531 ] placed reliance upon the previous judgment of Celina Coelho Pereira Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar Reported in [ (2010) 1 SCC 217 ] and other catena of decisions has observed that in order to prove the mischief of subletting as ground for eviction under the Rent Control laws, two ingredients have to be established, one, parting with possession of tenancy or apart of it by the tenant in favour of their party with exclusive right on possession and two that such parting with possession has been done without the consent of landlord and in lieu of the compensation or rent. Initially, the burden of subletting is on landlord but once he is able to establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove the occupation of such third party. A presumption of subletting may then be rest and would amount to prove unless rebutted. 13. 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. 14. In another 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. In another 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. 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)." 15. Recently, in 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. 16. 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 17. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand(s) disposed of.