Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—The petitioner-tenant Chetan Das S/o Nekumal Sindhi, aged 74 years, occupying the suit premises situated behind Anand Cinema, Beriyo Ka Moalla, Jodhpur has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondent landlord Smt. Anusuya Tak W/o Kishan Tak, resident of Jaloriya Ka Bas, Jodhpur being aggrieved by the concurrent eviction decree and judgment of Appellate Rent Tribunal and Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in respect of the residential house situated at aforesaid address Behind Anand Cinema, Jodhpur which was initially let out to the defendant-tenant-the present petitioner vide rent note dtd. 28.5.1965 w.e.f. 1.6.1965.

2. By the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter was finally heard at the admission stage itself and lengthy arguments and written submissions have been filed though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Pateil reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387 strongly deprecating the practice of entertaining such writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the dispute between landlord and tenant, where the only respondent is the landlord or tenant and held that such writ petitions are not even maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held as under:

"49. So the same expression namely to keep the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to the High Court `within the bounds of their authority' used in Manmatha Nath Biswas (AIR 1933 Cal. 132) (supra), to indicate the ambit of High Court's power of superintendence has been repeated over again the again by this Court in its Constitution Bench decisions.

50. Same principles have been followed by this Court in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala @ Bharucha (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and others etc., reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141: (AIR 1991 SC 1494: 1991 AIR SCW 1441), wherein it has been held that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior Court or Tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or Tribunal has come to. This Court made it clear that except to this "limited extent" the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of facts.

51. In coming to the above finding, this Court relied on its previous decision rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447: (AIR 1987 SC 117). The decision i. Chandavarkar (supra) is based on the principle of the Constitution Bench judgments in Waryam Singh (AIR 1954 SC 215) (supra) and Nagendra Nath (AIR 1958 SC 398) (supra) discussed above."

3. The Rent Tribunal while allowing the Rent Eviction Petition No. 222/2005- Smt. Anusuya Tak vs. Chetan Das passed a detailed judgment and eviction decree by the impugned judgment running into 18 pages on 6.2.2010 and the eviction decree was granted on the ground of alternative accommodation purchased by the tenant's wife at Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

4. The defendant-tenant Chetan Das challenged the said eviction decree before the Appellate Rent Tribunal by way of Rent Appeal No. 18/2010- Chetan Das vs. Smt. Anusuya Tak and the landlord Smt. Anusuiya Tak also preferred cross appeal No. 31/2010 on those grounds which were decided against the landlord by the Rent Tribunal, though the eviction decree was granted in her favour and thus, both these connected appeals namely, Rent Appeal No. 18/2010 - Chetan Das vs. Smt. Anusuiya Tak and Rent Appeal No. 31/2010- Smt. Anusuiya Tak vs. Chetan Das came to be decided by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal by the judgment and decree dtd 19.7.2012. While the defendant's Appeal No. 18/2010 came to be dismissed, the Rent Appeal No. 31/2010 filed by the landlord Smt. Anusuiya Tak was allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document