- (1.) The appellant/tenant has preferred this special appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, against the judgment dated 22.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.3901/2015 - Umesh Jhamb v. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner and Ors. , whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, assailing the order of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, was dismissed.
(2.) In the instant appeal, the appellant has sought following relief(s) : "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that record of the case may kindly be called for and the present Special Appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure-1) passed in SB CW No.3901/2015 by the Hon'ble Single Judge may kindly be set aside and the reliefs claimed in the writ petition may kindly be allowed in to. Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Appellant."
(3.) Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/landlord raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the special appeal against the judgment passed in writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of judgment rendered by this Court (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Shyam Narain Mehra and Ors. (D.B.S.A.W. No.345/2015) decided on 29.07.2015 , in which the Division Bench of this Court after considering number of judgments held that special appeal under Rule 134 (i) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment or final judgment or final order (not being a Judgment 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 and Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and ors. could not have entertained such prayers under Article 226 of the Constitution.;