- (1.) Instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this special appeal may kindly be allowed, impugned order dated 05.03.2013 may be quashed and set aside and original application of the respondent No. 1 filed before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur may kindly be dismissed with costs through out."
(2.) After hearing upon maintainability of this special appeal, we are of the opinion that instant special appeal is not maintainable in view of judgement rendered by co- ordinate Division Bench of this Court in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s Shyam Narain Mehra & Brothers reported in 2015(3) RLW 2691 in which it has been held that special appeal against the judgement rendered by Single Judge while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgements of Appellate Rent Tribiunal and Rent Tribunal is not maintainable.
(3.) Following adjudication has been made in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s Shyam Narain Mehra & Brothers by Division Bench of this Court in para 15 to 17:- "15. We have considered the submissions and find that there is a clear bar of filing intra-court Special Appeal under Rule 134(f) of the Rules of 1952, against the judgement or final order (not being a Judgement passed in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional Jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court. The Rule is more than clear that where the High Court had exercised the power of superintendence in a writ petition, which is vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a matter arising out of the orders of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal in a landlord-tenant dispute, the exercise of power would be under Article 227 and not under Article 226, as in the case of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra) and Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and ors. (supra), could not have entertained such prayers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. The legal position, In view of the judgements of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra) and Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and ors. (supra), is now settled and thus, since the appeal is not a matter of right and can be filed only if there is a statutory provision, the intra-court Special Appeal against the order of learned Single Judge passed in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227, is not maintainable, in view of Rule 134(i) of the Rules of 1952, which clearly bars the filing of Special Appeal against the judgement of the High Court rendered in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 17. The Special Appeal is held to be not maintainable, and is accordingly dismissed.";