JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.09.2019 (decree signed on 16.09.2019) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 31/2019 whereby the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant and confirmed the judgment dated 26.03.2019 (decree signed on 06.04.2019) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was the defendant in the suit and the suit was filed for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises. He submits that the suit was filed under Section 11 (1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 . The suit was filed way back in the year 2012 and was numbered as Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2012. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that although there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts and there is a direction for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, but the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal has not properly considered the materials placed on record. 5. The learned counsel, during the course of argument with regard to the status of the execution case relating to delivery of possession of the suit premises has produced a copy of the order dated 10.02.2023 passed in Execution Case No. 11 of 2019 and has submitted that the execution case has been closed after executing the decree and the appellant has been thrown out of possession. However, he submits that the matter is fit to be considered as the appellate court has not properly considered the materials on record. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that an order was passed striking off the defence of the defendant who is the appellant before this Court. The learned trial court had framed as many as 7 issues, out of which the issue No. 7 was not pressed by the parties. Issue Nos. V to VI, which were the main issues regarding relationship of land lord and tenant and default in payment of rent respectively, were decided in favour of the plaintiff vide paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgement. 7. Issue Nos. V to VI, which were the main issues regarding relationship of land lord and tenant and default in payment of rent respectively, were decided in favour of the plaintiff vide paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgement. 7. This Court finds that the learned trial court has considered the materials on record and has come to the findings. The learned appellate court has also considered the case of the appellant and the materials on record and upheld the findings and judgment passed by the learned trial court and also held that the trial court’s judgment does not suffer from any illegality . 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any question of law much less any substantial question of law calling for admission of the second appeal. The law is well-settled that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence and coming to a different finding once both the courts have appreciated the evidence placed on record and have come to the findings. No perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing. Consequently, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 9. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.