Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 18.12.2010 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar dated 14.02.2008 directing issuance of recovery certificate has been upheld.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the landlord - Navneet Kumar filed petition for eviction of the petitioners tenants from the shop situated at Purani Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar and for revision of rent; the eviction was sought on the ground of subletting.

3. The petitioners filed reply to the petition for eviction and denied the averments made in the petition; the allegations regarding subletting were denied; in the additional pleas the petitioners raised following plea:-

17- ;g fd xqytkjh yky dh e`R;q ds i'pkr vthZnkj us izR;FkhZ la0 1 deZpUn dks >wB cksydj ,oe~ /kks[ks ls vius dks fdjk;k/khu ifjlj dk ekfyd crk dj fdjk;k izkIr djuk 'kq: dj fn;k exj vthZnkj uouhr dqekj ds HkkbZ us fnukad 8&8&2003 dks izR;FkhZ la0 1 Jh deZpUn dks VsyhQksu ij lqfpr fd;k fd nqdku ua0 43 iqjkuh /kku e.Mh Jhxaxkuxj tks fd Jh deZpUn ds ikl fdjk;s ij gS mldk ekfyd o Loa; gS u fd uouhr dqekj gSA blds i'pkr vthZnkj dk HkkbZ fnukad 10&8&2003 dks iqu% izR;FkhZ la0 1 Jh deZpUn dh nqdku ij vk;k ,oe~ mlus Loa; dks fdjk;k/khu ifjlj dk ekfyd crkrs gq, fdjk;s dh ekax dh bl izdkj vthZnkj uouhr dqekj fdjk;k/khu ifjlj dk ekfyd gh ugha gS o vthZnkj o izR;FkhZx.k ds e/; HkwLokeh o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k ugha gS ,oe~ vthZnkj dks izR;FkhZx.k ds fo:) bl vthZ dks ykus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ughaA bl vk/kkj ij okn o vthZ fujLr djus ;ksX; gSA

4. A replication was filed by the landlord reiterating the allegation of subletting; in the replication it was indicated that as the tenant was paying rent of the premises to the landlord applicant, therefore, there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which was accepted by the tenant in the previous suit; the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and, therefore, the landlord has become entitled to eviction on the ground of denial of title as well.

5. The Tribunal framed issues pertaining to subletting and revision of rent; where after, the issues were amended and issues pertaining to denial of title and certain other objections raised by the tenant were framed.

6. After affidavits in evidence were filed and the deponents were cross- examined, the Rent Tribunal by its judgment dated 14.02.2008 decided the issue pertaining to the subletting against the landlord; the issue pertaining to revision of rent was decided in favour of the landlord.

7. While dealing with the issue pertaining to the denial of title, the Rent Tribunal came to the conclusion that the denial of title by the tenant was mala fide; the rent receipts produced by him have been issued by the landlord and in the earlier litigation he had accepted the landlord tenant relationship and has denied the relationship in the present petition and such denial amounts to denial of title and on that count the landlord was entitled to decree for eviction and ultimately, ordered issuance of recovery certificate.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the landlord filed cross-objections.

9. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for producing the notice dated 21.04.1998 said to have been issued by brother of the landlord and prayed that the same may be taken on record.

10. The Appellate Rent Tribunal fixed the application for arguments on few dates and where after heard the appeal itself and by its judgment dated 18.12.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant and accepted the cross-objections filed by the landlord, while finding on denial of title by the Rent Tribunal was upheld, the finding on subletting recorded by the Rent Tribunal was reversed and it was held that the tenant has sub