(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.65/2009 Chhaju Khan Vs Lalit Kumar Date: 13/02/2009 ** HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE ** Mr. Arun Jain, for the appellant. -- This civil second appeal under Section 100, CPC is preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar Camp, Shri Madhopur in Civil Regular Appeal No.21/2003, by which the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Shri Madhopur in Civil Suit No. 70/2000, by which he decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant- appellant for eviction and recovery of rent. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Courts below have been challenged by the defendant-appellant on the ground that the notice, which was said to be given to the defendant- appellant was not produced before the learned trial Court and only carbon copy of the notice was produced. I have given my thoughtful consideration to (2) the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant and also perused the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2008 passed by the first appellate Court and judgment and decree dated 30.07.2003 passed by the trial Court. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding against the defendant-appellant and it is specifically mentioned that the one month's notice was given by the plaintiff-respondent and the copy of the same was produced to prove that the notice was sent to the appellant-defendant. The appellate Court after considering each and every aspect and upon perusal of relevant record, rightly upheld the rest part of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In view of above discussion, the concurrent finding given by both the Courts below requires no interference as no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Accordingly, the present second appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected. (K.S. RATHORE), J. DJ/- 46