Sunil Ambwani, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents to the maintainability of the intra-court D.B.Special Appeal against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arising out of a landlord-tenant dispute decided by the Rent Tribunal and an appeal thereafter decided by Appellate Rent Tribunal under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

3. On 15.7.2015, the appellant was given time to examine as to whether a Special Appeal will be maintainable against the order of learned Single Judge passed in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under Rule 134(i) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (for short, “the Rules of 1952”).

4. The relevant Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 is quoted as below:-

“134(i) Appeal to the High Court from Judgment of Judges of the Court:-

An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the Judgment or a final order (not being a Judgment passed in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional Jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court.

(ii) Special appeal.- A person desiring to prefer a special appeal from the judgment of the Single Judge shall present a duly stamped memorandum of appeal within sixty days from the date of such judgment. Where such appeal is presented after the period mentioned above, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit explaining the cause of delay and it shall be rejected unless the appellant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for non preferring the appeal within the aforesaid time..”

5. Rule 134(1) of the Rules of 1952 clearly provides, without any doubt or ambiguity that where the High Court renders a judgment or final order in the exercise of its power of superintendence, an appeal to the High Court from the judgment of learned Single Judge (D.B.Special Appeal) will not be maintainable.

6. In the present case, an application was filed under section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) for eviction of the appellants from the leased premises, on the ground that the premises in question were leased to the predecessor-in-interest of the non-applicant-Caltax (India) Limited under a registered lease deed dated 15.10.1967 with effect from 1.2.1968 for a period of 20 years and could be renewed at the option of the lessee exercised prior to the expiry of the lease for two periods of ten years. It was submitted that the lease was not renewed after expiry of 20 years as per contract by way of an appropriate renewal deed drawn and registered. In defence, it was stated that even though two contractual renewals of 10 years each as visualized under Clause 3(g) of the lease deed dated 15.10.1967, were not formally obtained by way of execution of lease deeds afresh and registration thereof, yet the continuation of the non-applicant in the leased premises was based on the consent of the applicant on payment of enhanced rent as per the lease and was contractual in nature. The Rent Tribunal, Ajmer decided the issues against the tenant and consequently, directed the vacant possession to be given to the landlord. A statutory appeal under the Act of 2001 filed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, was dismissed on 8.10.2013.

7. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4195/2014 was filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited challenging the orders of the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was titled as “S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE