JUDGMENT 1. 1. These two cross writ petitions have been filed by the landlord - Bhanwar Lal and tenant - Smt. Shanti Devi being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner on 3/8/2009 in appeal decree No. 225/2007. 2. While the Rent Tribunal in eviction suit No. 13/2004 - Bhanwar Lal v. Shanti Devi had decreed the eviction of tenant from the suit premises, a 'Bada', given on montly rent of Rs. 30/- to the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, the learned Rent Tribunal rejected the ground of bonafide need of the landlord for the said 'Bada'. Such bonafide need was claimed by landlord Bhanwar Lal as he stated that he was running a sweet shop at Bikaner and kitchen for the said shop was situated in underground where 'Bhhatis' were to be burnt 8 to10 times in a month and the heat & smoke causes trouble in the residential house situated over the sweet shop and, therefore, he bonafidely needed the empty plot of land ('Bada') measuring 38'x20', at the back side, where the kitchen could be put up for the said sweet shop. 3. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in the appeal filed by the tenant, while reversing the findings of trial court i.e. Rent Tribunal on the ground of default in payment of rent & allowing the cross objection filed by the landlord under Order 41 Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code upheld the eviction decree on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord reversing the finding of Rent Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 3/8/2009 & thus eviction decree was upheld on different ground, changing the ground of eviction. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, both the parties have approached this Court by way of separate writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The tenant, Smt. Shanti Devi, being aggrieved by the eviction decree on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord and landlord, Bhanwar Lal, being aggrieved by the reversal of the findings by the learned Appellate Tribunal on the issue of default of payment of rent. 5. Mr. The tenant, Smt. Shanti Devi, being aggrieved by the eviction decree on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord and landlord, Bhanwar Lal, being aggrieved by the reversal of the findings by the learned Appellate Tribunal on the issue of default of payment of rent. 5. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the landlord, Bhanwar Lal, in the first instances, submitted that the learned appellate court was not justified in reversing the findings of the Rent Tribunal on the issue of default in payment of rent merely because the property in question upon Release Deed executed by other co-owners in favour of landlord Bhanwar Lal was so executed on 21/10/2003and 3/12/2003, therefore, before notice for eviction given on 28/10/2003, the default of six months was not complete. He submitted that even upon release deed, Bhanwar Lal would step into the shoes of other co-sharers and transfer of ownership would not accrue to the benefit of tenant as far as default in payment of rent is concerned. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Naraindas v. Rajendra Singh - 1972 RLW 100 & Chandrasen & anr. v. Murarilal - AIR 1976 Raj 142 . 6. Mr. Bhandari further submitted that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code under Order 41 Rule 22 clearly applied in the present case also and, therefore, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal was justified in entertaining the cross objections/cross appeal of the landlord and the findings of bonafide need of the landlord returned by the Appellate Tribunal are perfectly justified and same do not deserve to be disturbed in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the tenant, Smt. Shanti Devi. He also submitted that even though the issue relating to partial eviction was not there before both the Tribunals below, that also is not possible in view of requirement of landlord of complete empty plot of land which the defendant tenant uses for carpentry work. 7. On the other hand, Mr. He also submitted that even though the issue relating to partial eviction was not there before both the Tribunals below, that also is not possible in view of requirement of landlord of complete empty plot of land which the defendant tenant uses for carpentry work. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the tenant, Smt. Shanti Devi, submitted that the learned Appellate Tribunal has not only erred in entertaining the cross objections/cross appeal of the landlord as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not as such apply to the new Rent Control Act, 2001 and, therefore, the findings on bonafide need of landlord given in favour of tenant by the Rent Tribunal could not be reversed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal by entertaining such cross objections/cross appeal. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Girdhari Lal v. Hukam Singh & ors.- AIR 1977 SC 129 . He further submitted that the findings of learned Rent Tribunal in favour of tenant on the issue of default in payment of rent have also been wrongly reversed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. In the alternative, he submitted that partial eviction may be ordered and in the end learned counsel for the respondent tenant urged that if tenant's petition is dismissed, sufficient period may be granted to the tenant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of 'Bada' in question subject to payment of reasonable mesne profits. 8. I have heard learned counsels at some length and perused the impugned orders and judgments cited at the bar. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the writ petition filed by the tenant, Smt. Shanti Devi, deserves dismissal while the writ petition filed by landlord, Bhanwar Lal, deserves to be allowed. The reasons are as follows. 10. Since the question of title is not relevant in the eviction matters, therefore, upon release deed executed in favour of landlord Bhanwar Lal, the default committed by the tenant does not get washed out. The reasons are as follows. 10. Since the question of title is not relevant in the eviction matters, therefore, upon release deed executed in favour of landlord Bhanwar Lal, the default committed by the tenant does not get washed out. As it is clear that there was no transfer of ownership but with the release deed the said landlord, Bhanwar Lal continued to remain landlord as defined under Rent Control Act, the default in payment of rent committed by the tenant already existing continued and since all the attributes of the property stood fully vested in landlord Bhanwar Lal with the release deed executed in his favour, the findings of default in payment of rent reversed by the learned Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone are not justified. The learned appellate court has not appreciated the judgments of this Court in Naraindas v. Rajendra Singh - 1972 RLW 100 & Chandrasen & anr. v. Murarilal - AIR 1976 Raj 142 (supra) and, therefore, the findings of Rent Tribunal in favour of landlord on the issue of default in payment of rent deserve to be restored resulting in eviction decree even on the ground of default of payment of rent by the tenant. 11. Accordingly, writ petition No. 4232/2010 - Bhanwar Lal v. Smt. Shanti Devi is allowed and findings of the Appellate Tribunal to that extent in the impugned judgment dated 3/8/2009 are liable to be set aside and same are set aside. 12. Secondly, findings of the learned Appellate Tribunal on the issue of bonafide need of the landlord, while entertaining cross objections of the landlord under Order 41 Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code deserve to be upheld. The same are findings of fact returned by the learned Appellate Tribunal on appreciation of evidence already adduced by the landlord and it is not in doubt that the Appellate Tribunal has power to reverse the findings of trial court upon appreciation of the evidence before it. From the facts narrated above and evidence before the learned Appellate Tribunal, it is clear that the landlord needed the said empty plot of land ('Bada') for the purpose of making kitchen, which was working in the underground just beneath the sweet shop, which is run by the landlord and over first and second floor of which he has his residence with his son's family. 13. 13. It is well settled in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court that once the bonafide need of the landlord is established before the Rent Tribunal then it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms and ask the landlord to adjust his needs in the manner dictated by the tenant. The contention of learned counsel for the tenant, Mr. Sajjan Singh that admittedly such kitchen with 'Bhhatiwork only for 8 to 10 days in a month and, therefore, there was no need for the landlord of such empty plot of land is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Moreover, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless findings of the learned Appellate Tribunal could be shown to be perverse, arbitrary or without any foundation, no interference with such findings of facts could be made by this Court. 14. From the impugned order dated 3/8/2009 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, the findings of learned Appellate Tribunal in this regard, on the contrary appears to be just and reasonable and based on relevant evidence. Therefore, on the issue of bonafide need also, the impugned order of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal deserves to be upheld. 15. The question of partial eviction having not been raised before both the Tribunals below and now sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the tenant cannot be permitted to be raised in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. Thus, in the opinion of this court, eviction decree on both the grounds deserves to be upheld and accordingly, writ petition No. 9705/2009 - Shanti Devi v. Bhanwar Lal deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. 17. Accordingly, writ petition No. 4232/2010 (Bhanwar Lal v. Smt. Shanti Devi) is allowed and writ petition No. 9705/2009 (Shanti Devi v. Bhanwar Lal) is dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. The tenant, Smt. Shanti Devi will handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises ('bada' in question) to the landlord Bhanwar Lal within a period of six months from today and till then shall pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month commencing from October, 2011. No order as to costs. 18. The tenant, Smt. Shanti Devi will handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises ('bada' in question) to the landlord Bhanwar Lal within a period of six months from today and till then shall pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month commencing from October, 2011. If within six months, the tenant does not handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises or mesne profits are not paid, the decree shall become executable and besides execution proceedings, the landlord shall be entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court. *******