RSA 9/2001 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. A. R. Benerjee, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.C. Kha tri, learned Sr. counsel for the sole respondent. Mohammed Anish, S/o. Late Ali Hussain, resident of Thakurbari, District- Sonitpu r, Assam feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 2 8-8-2000 passed by Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Sonitpur in Title Appeal No. 21 o f 1993 has preferred this second appeal challenging its legality and correctness . By the impugned judgment and decree, the judgment and decree passed by Sadar M unsiff, Tezpur in Title Suit No. 86 of 1985 are affirmed. The appellant on various grounds as indicted in the memo of appeal has challenge d the legality of the judgment and decree. While preferring the appeal, the appe llant also formulated 7(seven) nos. of substantial questions of law in total. Fr om the perusal of the records it appears that the respondent Gul Mohammed as pla intiff instituted Title Suit No. 86 of 1985 against appellant as defendant for r ecovery of kash possession and for realization of lands and mesne profit which w as contested by the appellant by filing written statement. But the appellant fai led to substantiate his pleadings through evidence. The learned trial court afte r going into the facts and evidence on record both oral and documentary decreed the suit in favour of the respondent herein with cost including mesne profit and arrear rent. Being aggrieved by the decree so passed defendant as appellant preferred a Title Appeal being No. 21 of 1993. The appellate court taking into consideration of t he decisions arrived at by the learned trial court in the issues, after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree passed by the trial cou rt, which compelled the appellant herein to approach this court by filing this i nstant appeal. During course of hearing it is submitted by Mr. A. Benerjee that in view of the facts and relief sought for and the grounds contended in the memo of appeal in t he first appellate court, the first appellate court ought to have remanded the m atter for a fresh decision affording an opportunity to the appellant to adduce e vidence in support of his pleadings. Further Mr. Benerjee, learned Sr. counsel f or the appellant also submits that the formulation of the substantial questions of law by the appellant would serve the purpose if decisions are made on those q uestions. Contrary to the submissions advanced by Mr. Benerjee, Mr. T,C. Khatri, learned c ounsel appearing for the respondents strenuously argues that the substantial que stions of law so formulated by the appellant and placed before this court are no t substantial questions of law rather questions of fact. It is also submitted b y him that facts and evidence on record do not reveal any substantial question o f law to be determined rather decided by this court. It is submitted that the ap pellant being the tenant of the respondent and such tenancy being determined by notice (Ext. 5), the appellant is liable to be evicted therefrom. The learned tr ial court as well as the appellate court took the Ext.-5 as admitted by the appe llant. The notice, Ext.-5 having been admittedly received by the appellant herei n, denial that notice was never served upon him cannot sustain. It has been brou ght to the notice of this court that such notice was admitted to have received b y the appellant. In that view of the matter the appellant now, cannot go contrar y to such admission. I have considered the facts available in the record and also the evidence of the PW-1 and PW-4, the postal peon wherefrom it appears that notice, Ext-5 had been served upon the appellant Md. Anish. This court, therefore, is of the view that the questions formulated by the appel lant are not substantial questions of law rather questions of fact. A second app eal is maintainable only when substantial question of law is involved. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this appeal. It is acc ordingly dismissed. No cost.