JUDGMENT Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1995 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No.29A/1991 arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.09.1991 passed by II Civil Judge Class-I Sagar in Civil Suit No.21-A/1989. 2. This second appeal was admitted on 08.09.1997 on the following substantial question of law: 'Whether the plaintiffs ought to have been permitted to convert the eviction suit into a little suit claiming possession?' 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that it is well established principle of law that a suit for declaration cannot be converted into a suit for appeal and accordingly, he fairly conceded that the substantial question of law framed by the Court on 08.09.1997 does not arise. However, it is submitted that by order dated 13.08.2015, this Court had framed another substantial question of law which reads as under: 'Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error of law by reversing the finding recorded by the trial court that the landlord tenant relationship exist between the parties by virtue of principle of 'tenancy by attornment' thereby entitling the appellant/plaintiff to decree for eviction under the provision of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?' 4. It is also conceded that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the tenancy was created by attornment and accordingly even the second substantial question of law framed by the Court does not arise. 5. The original plaintiff Gulab Rani (appellants are the legal representatives of Gulab Rani) had filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the suit premises is required for bone fide need for non-residential purposes. The said suit was decreed. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent preferred an appeal which has been allowed and the suit filed by the appellants for eviction was dismissed. 7. The First Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the suit was never let out to the appellants. Once the plaintiff could not establish the landlord tenant relationship, then the suit for eviction is not maintainable. 8. 7. The First Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the suit was never let out to the appellants. Once the plaintiff could not establish the landlord tenant relationship, then the suit for eviction is not maintainable. 8. As none of the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1995 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No.29A/1991 is hereby dismissed. 9. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.