JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.8.09 of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 12.8.08 of the Rent Tribunal, Pali holding that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the premises in question inasmuch as the tenancy stands determined in terms of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short"the Act"). 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Tribunal has committed serious error while deciding the issue no. 1 holding that the rent of the flat leased out was agreed, upon at Rs. 2000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has specifically pointed out in his affidavit as well as during the cross examination that the rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month. The learned counsel submitted that in absence of rent deed or the receipt, the learned Rent Tribunal has erred in treating the rent of the flat at Rs. 2000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to make payment of the rent in arrears, therefore, in lieu of the decree of ejectment, an order relieving the petitioner against the forfeiture may be passed and the petitioner may be permitted to hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred. 4. A bare perusal of orders impugned reveals that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have concurrently found that rent of the premises was agreed upon at Rs. 2000/-. The findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is based on evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. 2000/-. The findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is based on evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Admittedly, no relief was claimed by the petitioner against the forfeiture before the Rent Tribunal and thereafter even before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, therefore, at this stage, the prayer made by the petitioner for relief against forfeiture for non payment of rent showing his readiness to pay the rent in arrear, interest thereon and full cost of the suit in terms of the provisions of Section 114 of the Act cannot be accepted by this court. 6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of any meat and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******