Second appeal jurisdiction requires a substantial question of law; concurrent findings on sub-letting and nuisance could not be reappreciated.

In second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to cases involving a specifically framed substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by mere reappreciation of evidence. Findings of sub-letting and nuisance based on evidence were concurrent factual findings, and the High Court was not justified in setting them aside without first identifying and deciding a substantial question of law. The result was restoration of the eviction decree passed by the courts below and setting aside of the High Court's judgment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact without framing and deciding a substantial question of law. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the findings of sub-letting and nuisance recorded by the courts below.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact without framing and deciding a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The amended scheme of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court to cases involving a substantial question of law. The memorandum of appeal must state such question precisely, the High Court must formulate it, and the appeal must be heard on that formulated question. Without this discipline, interference in second appeal is beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court could not interfere with the concurrent findings without framing a substantial question of law; its interference was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the findings of sub-letting and nuisance recorded by the courts below.

Analysis: The findings on sub-letting and nuisance were based on evidence and were concurrent findings of fact. Mere absence of detail in the pleadings did not justify disturbing those findings, and the High Court reappreciated evidence without any substantial question of law. Such interference was impermissible in second appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the findings of sub-letting and nuisance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the decree of eviction passed by the courts below was restored, with the High Court's judgment set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court can interfere only when a substantial question of law is specifically involved and formulated, and concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be disturbed by mere reappreciation of evidence.

---