Judgment 1. Learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition holding that writ is not maintainable and revision is an appropriate remedy, provided it falls within the ambit and scope of revisional jurisdiction. 2. Mr. Ranjan, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that revision is not maintainable and writ is the only remedy available to the appellant. 3. Mr. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that revision is not maintainable and he also brought to our notice Clause (c) of Sub-section (11) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 wherein it is provided that against the decision of Appellate Rent Tribunal, no further appeal or revision shall lie. The relevant clause reads as under:- “(c) The decision of the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall be final and no further appeal or revision shall lie against its order.” 4. When the provisions of Act itself does not provide the remedy of revision, the revision is not maintainable. 5. Mr. Kapoor submits that when the writ is the appropriate course in this case, the writ petition should be remitted back to learned Single Judge for decision on merits. 6. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties, we remit the matter back to learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition on merits. 7. Mr. Ranjan, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that stay was granted by learned Single Judge, therefore, till the matter is taken up by learned Single Judge, the stay should be granted. 8. As the matter has been remitted back to learned Single Judge, list the petition before learned Single Judge on 02.08.2005 and let the learned Single Judge take decision on stay application. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.