JUDGMENT 1. - To question correctness of order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur issued a certificate for eviction on 18.10.2005 on basis of a compromise arrived between landlord Shri Fateh Lal and tenant Shri Prakash Chandra. To challenge the same, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner Shri Ratan Lal with assertion that he was having possession over the rented premises, as such, no certificate for eviction could have been granted without affording him an opportunity of hearing. On receiving notice of the appeal, the respondent-landlord preferred an application to reject the appeal on the count that the petitioner was never his tenant. The appellate tribunal by order dated 14.12.2007 accepted the application and dismissed the appeal being not maintainable. To challenge the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having possession on a part of premises, therefore, no certificate could have been issued for his eviction from the premises. 4. While meeting with the argument advanced, it is submitted on behalf of respondent-landlord that the petitioner was party in an earlier suit preferred by Shri Mohammed Shah, the preceding landlord of the property-in-question and in that suit, the petitioner in definite terms stated that he is not at all concerned with the rented premises. A copy of the written statement filed on behalf of the present petitioner in the suit aforesaid is also placed on record as Annexure-R/2. A copy of the written statement filed on behalf of the present petitioner in the suit aforesaid is also placed on record as Annexure-R/2. Suffice to mention here that in the earlier suit, the petitioner was defendant No.2 and on his behalf following statement was made in the written statement:- "( [k ) fd izLrqr okn ,oa oknxzLr tk;nkn ls izfroknh la0 2 dk dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gSA izfroknh la0 2] izfroknh la0 1 dk HkkbZ gS ,oa os la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj ds lnL; gS fd ftlls og dHkh 2 vius HkkbZ ds ikl vkdj nqdku ij cSBrk gSA izfroknh la0 1 }kjk tks O;olk; fd;k tk jgk gS mlls Hkh izfroknh la0 2 dk dksbZ laca/k ugha gS D;ksafd izfroknh la0 2 rks Lo;a ukSdjh djrk gSA oknh dh ,oa oknh ds vfHkHkk"kd dks ;g Hkyh izdkj ekywe gksrs gq;s Hkh izfroknh la0 2 dks tyhy o ijs'kku djus ds fy;s mlds fo:) ;g xyr okn izLrqr fd;k gS fd ftlls izfroknh la0 2 oknh ls /kkjk 35&, tk0nh0 ds vUrxZr fo'ks"k O;; ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA " 5. The averments of the written statement quoted above clearly mentions that the petitioner was never a tenant with the premises-in-question. The factual position pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has also not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, learned Rent Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error while accepting the application preferred by the respondent-landlord and dismissing the appeal at threshold. 6. The petition for writ is dismissed, accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******