- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE order of Single Bench dated 27th April, 2012 dismissing appellant's S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7604/2011 is under challenge in this intra-court appeal. The landlord/respondent No.3 Shri Ram Gupta filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction against tenant/appellant on the ground of default as well as non-user of the rented premises. The application was contested by the tenant. Learned Tribunal framed three issues. Issue No.1 was relating to non-user. Issue No.2 was relating to default and Issue No.3 was about relief to be granted in the matter. Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. Learned Tribunal after considering the submissions of parties and evidence available on record, decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 both in favour of the applicant i.e. landlord and passed a possession decree in favour of the landlord. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the appellant, but the same was dismissed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 18th April, 2011. Thereafter, non-applicant/tenant preferred a writ petition before Single Bench under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which has been dismissed vide order dated 27th April, 2012, which is impugned in this intra-court appeal. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the orders passed by learned Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Single Bench are not in accordance with law, therefore, the same may be set aside. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition. We have also examined the impugned orders passed by Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal. The questions of default in making payment of monthly rent as well as non-user of the rented premises, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, are purely questions of facts. There is a concurrent finding of fact by Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal, which could not have been interferred with by Single Bench while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and has rightly not been interferred with. We are of the view that order passed by learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this intra-court appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Stay Application No. 8047/2012 is also dismissed. ;