Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-The writ petition was dismissed on 17.03.2005 as the respondent raised the objection that this present petition is not maintainable against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal under the Rent Control Act, 2001 as the Tribunal has passed the final order and the remedy is available to the petitioner before the civil Court. Against the order dated 17.03.2005 of the learned Single Judge, petitioner preferred a special appeal before Division Bench. 2. Before the Division Bench, learned Counsel for the respondents has conceded that the writ is only remedy as per Clause (c) Sub-section (11) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, therefore, the Division Bench vide its Judgment dated 01.08.2005 remitted back the matter for fresh adjudication. 3. Therefore, this writ petition is revived. 4. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 24.05.2004 and 10.11.2004 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal and Appeal Rent Control Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has seriously erred in decreeing this suit of plaintiff Respondent No. 3 for eviction. It is also alleged that the evidence led has not been properly appreciated to show the necessity of the present shop. The Tribunal also not appreciated this fact that the parties are real brothers and they are doing the business of sweet and Respondent No. 3 has purchased the disputed shop having a tenant already sitting over it and there is business rivalry among the brothers. 5. It is also averred on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent already constructed two rooms and kitchen as such his necessity came to an end and stood satisfied. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Courts below vide their Judgment s dated 24.05.2004 and 10.11.2004 have properly appreciated the evidence and then passed the order and as such no illegality or error is committed by the Courts below and both the Courts below have given concurrent finding against the petitioner and he further submits that the respondents is having necessity of the shop in question. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of his submission placed reliance on the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 . 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of his submission placed reliance on the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 . I have gone through the aforesaid Judgment and of the opinion that the ratio decided in that case does not help the petitioner. 8. Having heard the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the orders impugned passed by the Rent Control Tribunal as well as the Appeal Rent Control Tribunal, Ajmer as both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that the respondent is in dire necessity of the shop in question and after examining the evidence and the record of the case, both the Courts have given finding in favour of the respondent and I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record and no interference whatsoever is called for by this Court while exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.