JUDGMENT : – Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. 2. This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree 9-11-2021 passed by learned 6th District Judge, Katni, district- Katni (MP) whereby the judgment and decree dated 16-2-2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 217-A/2014 (RCS-A-217/2017) by learned Additional Civil Judge, Class-II to 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Katni, district- Katni have been affirmed. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. As per the plaintiffs, the plaintiff - Singhai Todarmal Kanhaiyalal Jain Parmarthik Trust, Katni (in short ‘the Trust’). The plaintiff Trust is a registered trust under the provisions of Public Trust Act. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the trustees of the aforesaid Trust. The respondent is a tenant of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for the purpose of non-residential purpose. Plaintiff claimed that he regularly issued receipts of rent. However, after some time, the defendant was not regularly paying the rent to the Trust. The plaintiffs/ respondents filed the suit for eviction against the appellant/defendant for delivery of vacant possession. 4. As per the provision of section 3(2) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, the Government can exempt any educational or religious institutions/trust from the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act and the State Government vide Gazette Notification dated 7-9-1989 has exempted the Trust from the aforesaid Act. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be any official gazette. The suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and it was directed to the appellant/defendant to handover the vacant possession of the suit property within two months and also to deposit the arrears of rent. The aforesaid judgment and decree have been affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree holding that the property belongs to the Trust and the defendant himself filed the registration certificate of the trust as Exhibit D-1. 5. Neither the ownership of the Trust over the suit property was disputed nor the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs was in dispute. The defendant/appellant in his cross-examination accepted the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. 5. Neither the ownership of the Trust over the suit property was disputed nor the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs was in dispute. The defendant/appellant in his cross-examination accepted the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. He also received notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before filing of the suit by the Trust. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nomi Singh and another, (2015) 14 SCC 450 to submit that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. From perusal of the record this Court finds that plaintiff duly discharged its burden. Therefore, on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record, the trial Court passed the judgment and decree which have been rightly upheld by the Lower Appellate Court. 6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Setia vs. Madan Lal and others, (2019) 9 SCC 381 has held that interference and reappreciation of the evidence in an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible only where findings are perverse i.e. based on complete misappreciation or erroneous consideration of evidence or where there is failure to consider relevant evidence, as the same becomes question of law. [See also : Damodar Lal vs. Sohan Devi and others, (2016) 3 SCC 78 ; Naresh and others vs. Hemant and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 1490] 7. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the decision in the case of Nazir Mohamed vs. J. Kamala and others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 676 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 32 has held as follows : “32. To be “substantial”, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either way.” 8. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The same cannot be termed as perverse or illegal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.