ORDER :

Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.

1. Though, the matter comes up on an application No. 1/2019 filed by the respondent seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the undertaking furnished by him on 19.11.2018 to not to proceed further in the pending execution proceedings and continued from time to time; but, on joint request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition was heard today for admission.

2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant against the judgment and recovery certificate issued in favour of respondent/appellant/landlord, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur, has been dismissed.

3. The facts in brief are that the application filed by the respondent under Sections 6 & 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity "the Act of 2001") seeking revision of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the rent premises comprising a shop, was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 03.05.2017. The appeal preferred by the petitioner remained unsuccessful.

4. Assailing the judgment impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts below have erred in deciding the Issue No. 6 which pertained to the effect of judgments rendered in previous litigations between the parties/their predecessors-in-interest on the present litigation, without appreciating the material on record. Drawing attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by this Court in SB Civil Second Appeal No. 90/1988, Giriraj Prasad @ Giriraj Sharan through LRs versus Babulal Kasera through LRs, learned counsel submitted that while dismissing the second appeal preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, this Court has held therein that the gift deed dated 06.04.1968 was a sham document and hence, the present application filed by the respondent claiming his right in the suit premises through the gift deed dated 06.04.1968, was not maintainable. Relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the cases of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 216 & Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Versus Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 Supreme Court cases 329, learned counsel submitted that since the findings of the learned Courts below suffer from perversity on Issue No. 6, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as there is concurrent finding of facts of the Courts below as to the earlier judgments of the Courts in previous litigations between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties, having no bearing upon the present litigation, this Court should be loathe in interfering with such finding under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that this Court has, nowhere in its judgment dated 27.07.2011, cast any aspersion on the validity of the gift deed dated 06.04.1968. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. The fulcrum of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner qua Issue No. 6, is that once in earlier round of litigation between the parties, it was held that the gift deed dated 06.04.1968, the whole basis of claim of the respondent as to his title in the suit property, is a fake and sham document, the judgment of revision of rent and eviction against him is not sustainable. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of this Court dated 27.07.2011 passed in SB Civil Second Appeal No. 90/1988 which arose out of dismissal of suit filed by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner from the su