Intra-court appeals are not maintainable against judgments passed by a learned Single Bench in writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of landlord-tenant disputes decided by the Rent Tribunal and an appeal thereafter decided by the Appellate Rent Tribunal under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, as per Rule 134(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

The instant special appeal has been preferred by appellant writ petitioner Smt. Leela Devi for assailing judgment dated 13.09.2019, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13212/2019 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner and affirming judgments dated 05.08.2019, passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and 19.09.2018, passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the Rent Tribunal had allowed the eviction petition preferred by respondent and directed eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises. The order of Rent Tribunal was affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for assailing both these judgments stands dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2019.

2. The appellant's counsel, Shri J. Gehlot vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned judgments are perverse and bad in the eyes of law and therefore the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. He urged that Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal failed to apply mind to the significant evidence available on record, which fortifies the appellant's case. The fact that the rent agreement dated 14.01.2007 was fabricated was duly proved by the expert's report, wherein an opinion was expressed that the rent agreement did not bear signatures of the appellant. However, the expert's report was not considered in the correct perspective by the learned Single Judge and both the tribunals, and hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. Shri Gehlot also urged that respondent failed to lead proper evidence so as to establish the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between her and the appellant-petitioner and thus also there was no justification for directing eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. He, therefore, urges that the appeal deserves to be admitted.

3. Per contra, Shri N.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Smt. Kamla (landlord) vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Gehlot and raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant appeal. He referred to a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Shyam Narain Mehra & Bros. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ Petition No.345/2015) decided on 29.07.2015 and urged that it has been conclusively laid down in the above case that an intra Court appeal does not lie against the judgment passed by learned Single Bench in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of landlord-tenant dispute decided by Rent Tribunal and an appeal thereafter decided by Appellate Rent Tribunal under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

4. Shri Choudhary further contended that two Tribunals and a Single Bench of this Court duly applied their mind to the entire material available on record and have reached to the following concurrent findings of fact :-

1. The existence of landlord-tenant relationship between Fateh Kanwar and the appellant was admitted. Respondent-Smt. Kamla purchased the premises from Fateh Kanwar where after a fresh rent agreement was executed between Smt. Kamla and the appellant herein on 14.01.2007.

2. That the appellant took a total frivolous stand before Tribunal that she was owner of the property and not its tenant and the premise had been gifted to her by Smt. Fateh Kanwar by way of an oral gift. Contrary to this stand, the appellant admitted deposition before the Rent Tribunal that the premises in question had been let out to her by Fateh Kanwar.

3. Admittedly, the appellant failed to pay rent of the premises to respondent-landlord for the disputed period & thus her eviction was rightly directed as per Section 9 of the Rent Control Act.

5. He, thus, urges that this Court should be loathe to interfere in concurrent findings of fact while consider