JUDGMENT :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dt. 27.11.18 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 22.9.17 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Case No. 24/13(2013/14), allowing the petition preferred by the respondents under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") and granting injunction as prayed for, has been dismissed.

2. The facts relevant are that the respondents No. 1 & 2 preferred a petition under Sec. 18 of the Act alleging that a residential premises ad measuring 20 x 30 ft. consisting of 2 rooms, bathroom, toilet and kitchen was given on rent by them to the petitioner herein for rent Rs. 5,000/- on 1.11.90. However the petitioner herein attempted to occupy un-authorisedly the part of the premises owned and possessed by the respondents. Accordingly, the injunction was sought in terms that the petitioner herein may not interfere with the use and occupation of the premises by the respondents, by attempting to un-authorisedly occupy the part of the premises not let out.

3. The petition was contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. The specific stand of the petitioner in the reply was that as a matter of fact, the area of the premises let out is 20 x 50 sq.ft. and not 20 x 30 sq.ft. as averred by the respondents in the petition filed.

4. As a matter of fact, prior to filing of the petition by the respondents as aforesaid, the petitioner had also filed a petition under Sec. 18 of the Act seeking injunction against the respondents not to interfere with his use and occupation of the premises measuring 20 x 50 sq.ft.

5. After due consideration of the evidence on record and the rival submissions, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the area of the premises let out to the petitioner herein is 20 x 30 sq.ft. and not 20 x 50 sq.ft. as claimed. Accordingly, the Rent Tribunal proceeded to decide the petitions by separate order dt. 20.9.17.

6. The petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed in terms that the respondents shall not forcibly dispossess the petitioner herein from the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. and his use and occupation over the rented premises shall not be interfered with.

7. The petition preferred by the respondents was also allowed and the injunction was granted in favour of the respondents in terms that the petitioner shall not interfere with the use and occupation of the respondents over the premises which is not part of the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. let out to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal questioning the legality of order dt. 22.9.17 passed by the Rent Tribunal, granting injunction in favour of the respondents.

9. The appeal preferred has been dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

10. It is pertinent to note that in the petition filed, it is not averred that petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal in the petition filed by him, restricting the injunction granted only to the extent of the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. as against the injunction sought for the premises measuring 20 x 50 sq.ft., however, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal in the petition filed by him as well, which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that from the very beginning the petitioner is in possession of the premises measuring 20 x 50 sq.ft. It is submitted that the rent agreement produced by the respondents was a forged document inasmuch as, the tenancy was oral and no such agreement was ever executed. It is submitted that the petitioner had given a blank stamp paper to the respondents for the security purpose which has been used by the re