1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Ladu has beseeched to quash and set-aside the judgment dated 4th November, 2008 (Annexure-4) and 7th April, 2011 (Annexure-6), rendered by the Rent Tribunal Tonk and Appellate Rent Tribunal, Tonk respectively.

2. The nub of the appellant's story is that the respondent-applicant Kishan Lal filed an application for eviction under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner-non applicant on the ground of denial of title, personal necessity and default in payment of rent.

3. Having recorded the evidence led by both the parties and carefully perused the entire material on record, the learned Rent Tribunal decreed the suit of eviction in favour of the respondent-applicant and against the petitioner-non applicant. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 4th November, 2008, the petitioner-non applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the appeal filed by the petitioner non applicant also stood dismissed. Hence, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed both the judgments of the courts below on the ground that the Rent Tribunal, Tonk had wrongly closed the right of cross-examination of the petitioner on 23rd February, 2007 and 18th April, 2007. Thereafter the learned Rent Tribunal passed one more interlocutory order on 18th November, 2007 and he challenged all these interlocutory orders in appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, but the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not give any finding on these issues. Similarly, he also raised the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and contended that on account of there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the application for eviction of premises filed under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was not maintainable. The learned appellate court did not give any finding on this issue also. Thus, the impugned orders rendered by both the courts below being contrary to provisions of law, are perse illegal and deserve to be set-aside.

5. Learned counsel also canvassed that the interlocutory orders rendered by learned Rent Tribunal could be assailed in the appeal before the Appellate Court and he has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 707 (1).

6. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant defended the impugned judgments and stated the same to be just and proper and contended that they did not warrant any intervention.

7. At the very out-set, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Tribunal could be assailed in the appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and there were umpteen cases of the Hon'ble Apex court to be cited in this regard. One judgment of Kshitiesh Chandra Bose (supra) has been cited by the learned counsel in support of his argument, but there is not a whisper of this fact in the whole judgment that the interlocutory order passed by the learned trial court could be impugned or challenged in the appeal before the appellate court. Having perused the judgment of Kshitish Chandra Bose (supra) delivered by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is found that the whole judgment runs against the petitioner of this case.

8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the learned Rent Tribunal in all framed 11 issues and issues no. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 were found to have been proved in favour of the respondent-applicant and against the petitioner non applicant. The learned Rent Tribunal also found the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties and having found all the material issues proved in favour of the respondent-applicant, the learned Tribunal decreed the application of eviction in favour of the respondent-applicant and against th