1. - This is an intra Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 998 of 2012 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 13.2.12 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. Since the issue in question is a short one, we need not burden our order by narrating entire facts in detail.

2. It is an eviction matter between landlord and tenant. The appellant is tenant whereas the respondent is landlord. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for his eviction under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act seeking decree for eviction from suit accommodation on the ground of subletting, non-payment of rent and bonafide need. It was alleged that respondent (landlord) requires the accommodation for starting business of hotel. It was contested by the appellant. However, the Rent Tribunal decreed the suit holding the need of respondent to be bonafide. It was upheld in appeal and then lastly in writ petition in favour of landlord giving rise to filing of appeal by the tenant.

3. While dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner (appellant herein) the learned Single Judge in concluding para observed as under:-

"Having considered all the facts of the case, I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The landlord is certainly residing at Gujarat but that in no manner adversely effects his bonafide necessity. He want to utilise the premises in question as an extended part of a Hotel run by his sister and to get his livelihood through that. The landlord in quite unambiguous terms stated that he want to run his own business at the premises. The petitioner, as such utterly failed to point out any wrong with the concurrent findings given by the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The findings given by the Courts below are just and proper and in no manner warrants any interference of this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition for writ, thus, is dismissed."

4. Mere perusal of the concluding para of the impugned order would go to show that appellant, who is a tenant has suffered eviction decree from the original Court, then upheld by the Tribunal as an appellate Court and lastly by the Writ Court. So it is a concurrent decree of eviction suffered by the appellant from all Courts.

5. In a case of this nature, where the decree for eviction is concurrent in nature, then all factual findings are binding on the Writ Court while hearing the writ petition so also while hearing the appeal arising out of such writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out to us or to Writ Court as to how and in what circumstances any finding of fact recorded by the original Court and then upheld by the Rent Tribunal in appeal is not binding on writ Court. In our opinion, the issue of jurisdiction alone could have been made subject matter of writ petition and so in this appellate Court and not every factual finding recorded by original Court and appellate Court. In other words, unless the finding of fact is found to be against the pleadings or against the evidence on record or is based on no evidence or recorded against any provision of law, which govern the issue or is such that no judicial man of average acumen can record, then alone a case for interference in writ petition is made out, else not. Such does not appear to be a case of this nature and hence we are not inclined to interfere in the order of the writ Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant however contended that no factual finding on certain issues was given. We do not agree because reading of three orders impugned do not justify this submission to be correct. We thus reject this submission.

8. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that atleast 3 years' time be given to the appellant to vacate the suit premises to enable him to settle his business at some other appropriate place.

9. Having considered the submissions we al