JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - The legal questions that fall for our determination in this reference made by the Division Bench of this Court read as under:

"I) Whether the appeal against the judgement of the Single Bench, reversing/upholding the judgement of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and/or the Rent Tribunal, would be maintainable before the Division Bench of this court under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules of 1952?

II) Whether the writ petition filed against the judgement of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal by very nature of the dispute, would be considered to have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, irrespective of invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the pleadings?"

2. The Background facts giving rise to the legal issues may be summarized thus: The appellant-Mahendra Kumar Jain is a tenant since 10.10.2001 in commercial premises i.e. two shops situated at Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer, owned by the landlord-Smt. Shail Bhargava and others, the respondent nos. 3 to 6 herein. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 9 of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 ("the Act of 2001") before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant from the rented premises, on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from 1.7.2005 to 31.10.2005. The appellant-tenant contested the petition by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the respondent-landlord did not disclose her bank account number in the notice served and thus, the mandatory condition precedent for maintaining the petition seeking eviction on the ground of default, was not satisfied. Besides, it was averred that pursuant to the notice served, the arrears of rent due was deposited and therefore, there is no default in payment of rent in terms of Section 9 (a) of the Act of 2001. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the appellant-tenant has committed default in payment of rent and accordingly, he was directed to be evicted from the premises in question vide judgment dated 21.4.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001, before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, which stood dismissed vide judgment dated 21.12.2009. Assailing the legality of the judgments of the Rent Tribunal and the