JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 24th March, 2009 passed by Appellate Rent Control Tribunal in Appeal No.123/07 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed by Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur in Original Application No.509/2005, whereby application filed by the applicants/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of non-applicant/petitioner was allowed and a decree of eviction was passed against petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the rented premise. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that applicants/respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for ejectment of non-applicant/petitioner from the rented shop before Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of applicant No.1. The application was contested by non-applicant. Learned Rent Tribunal framed two issues. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. Thereafter, learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed a decree of ejectment in favour of landlord. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by tenant/petitioner, but without success. 3. The question of personal bona fide necessity of the rented premise by landlord/respondents Nos.3 to 5, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is a pure question of fact and there is concurrent finding of facts by Rent Control Tribunal as well as Rent Control Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the finding of both the courts below so as to interfere with the same. It is a settled law that finding of fact recorded by two courts below cannot be interfered with by High Court, while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. 4. The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another, (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297 ), held the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38 ), held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 6. In view of above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order and there is no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by Rent Control Tribunal as well as Rent Control Appellate Tribunal so as to interfere with the same. 7. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed in limine.Petition dismissed. *******