JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and certificate dated 05.01.2012 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the appellate tribunal' hereinafter), whereby the appellate tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner-defendants and affirmed the order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the rent tribunal' hereinafter). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed a suit under the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001' hereinafter) for eviction and possession while claiming that they had purchased a house situated at Chadwon-ki-Gali, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur from three brothers viz. Mohan Lal, Indraraj and Radhey Shyam sons of Kishan Narayan through a registered sale deed on 28.08.1969 and became owners of the said property. In the disputed house, earlier, Nasir Ahmed and his son Zahir Ahmed were the tenants, and after their death, their heirs are residing in that house. It was claimed that being heirs of Nasir Ahmed and Zahir Ahmed, the petitioner-defendants became tenants of the respondent-plaintiffs. It was contended in the plaint that despite notice, the tenant petitioner-defendants have not paid the rent, though they are aware about the sale of the disputed house as they had filed a suit for preemption claiming that they have first right to purchase the property in question. The contentions regarding bonfide necessity was pleaded in the plaint and a decree for eviction, rent and possession was sought on the ground of default and bonafide necessity. The petitioner-defendants had filed a reply to the application of the respondent-plaintiffs and denied the relationship of tenant and landlord. It was claimed by the petitioner-defendants that Khatija wife of Nasir Ahmed had filed a suit for preemption, which came to be decreed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur on 24.05.1979, against which an appeal was filed, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur, wherein the decree passed in favour of Khatija was set aside and the suit preferred by Khatija was also rejected and the appeal preferred against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur is pending before Rajasthan High Court. The claim of the bonafide need of the respondent-plaintiffs has also been denied in the written statements. 3. The claim of the bonafide need of the respondent-plaintiffs has also been denied in the written statements. 3. The rent tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, had framed six questions for consideration and after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the application. The questions framed by the rent tribunal are as follows: 1- vk;k oknxzLr edku ckcr~ i{kdkju~ esa edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k esa ;k ugha\ 2- vk;k fdjk;k vnk djus esa vizkFkhZ O;fDrdzeh gSa\ 3- vk;k fdjk;snkj ds :i esa vizkFkhZx.k us viuh gSlh;r dk vf/kR;kx dj fn;k gSa vkSj mUgksaus HkwLokfe ds gd (Title) ls bUdkj dj fn;k gA vkSj HkwLokeh us vius vf/kdkj dk R;kx ugha fd;k gS rFkk fdjk;snkj ds vkpj.k dks ekQ ugha fd;k gS\ 4- " vk;k vizkFkhZx.k dks oknxzLr ifjlj dh ;qfDr;qDr vkSj ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS\ " 5- " vk;k fdjk;snkj us viuh vko';drk ds fy, i;kZIr ,oa miZ;qDr ifjlj cuk fy;k gS vkSj mldk [kkyh dCtk vftZr dj fy;k gS\ " 6- " vk;k izkFkhZx.k fdjk;k iqjhf{kr djkus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ " 4. It is to be noted that the question Nos. 2 to 5 as determined by the rent tribunal for consideration, had been decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs as the same had not been controverted by the petitioner-defendants before the rent tribunal. While deciding the question No.1, the rent tribunal had relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court and held that with the purchase of the property in question vide registered sale-deed dated 28.08.1969 by the respondent-plaintiffs, they step into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the property in question and, therefore, the relation between the tenant and landlord between the plaintiffs and defendants has been established because in the registered sale deed of the property in question, it is clearly mentioned that Nasir Ahmed and Zahir Ahmed were tenants in the said property and now their heirs are residing as tenant in the said property. After this finding, the learned rent tribunal fixed the rent while deciding the question No.6 and had allowed the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs and held the respondent-plaintiffs entitled to get the possession of the property. 5. After this finding, the learned rent tribunal fixed the rent while deciding the question No.6 and had allowed the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs and held the respondent-plaintiffs entitled to get the possession of the property. 5. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 03.08.2006, the petitioner-defendants preferred an appeal under section 19 of the Act of 2001 before the appellate tribunal, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2012. The learned appellate tribunal, after taking into consideration all the arguments raised on behalf of petitioner-defendants, has dismissed the appeal having found no merit and has confirmed the order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the rent tribunal. 6. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition, while challenging the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the learned appellate tribunal and the order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the rent tribunal. 7. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned appellate tribunal and the rent tribunal have failed to take into consideration that after setting aside of the decree of the preemption passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur on 24.05.1979, in a suit filed by Khatija, it cannot be said that the petitioner-defendants became tenants of the respondent-plaintiffs. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that with the passing of the decree dated 24.05.1979, the ownership of Mohan Lal Indraraj and Radhey Shyam sons of Kishan Narayan, from whom the respondent-plaintiffs have purchased the property vide registered sale-deed dated 28.08.1969, came to an end and the petitioner defendants became occupiers. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned appellate tribunal as well as the rent tribunal have not considered the said aspect of the matter and have grossly erred in passing the impugned orders and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the learned appellate tribunal as well as by the rent tribunal, and for rejection of the application preferred on behalf of the respondent-plaintiffs before the rent tribunal. 8. 8. Per contra, Mr R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Narendra Thanvi, appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiffs has supported the orders passed by the appellate tribunal and the rent tribunal, and has argued that the grounds raised by the petitioner-defendants before this Court were neither raised nor proved before both the tribunals below, and for the first time, the petitioners are raising this ground that they are liable to be declared as occupier of the property in question and not as tenants. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have failed to prove their title over the disputed property and no documentary evidence was produced by them in this regard before the rent tribunal and in view of this fact, the findings arrived at by the appellate tribunal as well as by the rent tribunal are fully justified. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners had taken a contradictory stand before the rent tribunal, as on the one hand they were claiming themselves to be the owners of the property, while on the other hand, it was claimed by them that the suit for preemption regarding the disputed property was filed by them. It is contended that both the tribunals below have rightly considered the contradictory stand taken by the petitioners and they are fully justified in treating the petitioners as tenant over the disputed property. The learned counsel for the respondents has, argued that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court have neither pleaded nor raised by the petitioners before both the tribunals below and as such while invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise these grounds for the first time before this Court. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and has carefully examined the material placed on record by the parties and perused the impugned orders. 10. It is true that the petitioner-defendants have never claimed before the tribunals below to be declared themselves as occupiers of the property in question. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and has carefully examined the material placed on record by the parties and perused the impugned orders. 10. It is true that the petitioner-defendants have never claimed before the tribunals below to be declared themselves as occupiers of the property in question. Before the tribunals below, the petitioners had taken contradictory stand to the effect that they claimed themselves to be the owner of the disputed property, whereas on the other hand, they have relied upon the suit for preemption filed by Khatija regarding the disputed property. The rent tribunal has considered the contradictory stand taken by the present petitioners and, therefore, treated them as tenant over the disputed property. It is also considered that the petitioner-defendants had never taken a stand before the rent tribunal that the relation between the tenant and landlord came to an end when the decree of the preemption was granted and, therefore, the rent tribunal had no occasion to consider the said aspect of the matter and no such finding had been given by the rent tribunal as well as by the appellate tribunal on the said aspect. In view of the fact that no such plea was taken before the tribunals below, no illegality can be found with the orders passed by the rent tribunal as well as by the appellate tribunal. 11. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the tenancy of the petitioners came to an end with the passing of the decree of preemption way back on 24.05.1979 and thereafter they became occupiers of the property in question and as such cannot be termed as tenant of the respondent-plaintiffs has taken into consideration but for rejection only. It is to be noticed that the decree of preemption passed on 24.05.1979 has not been executed at any point of time and has been set aside by the appellate court in an appeal preferred on behalf of the respondent-plaintiffs. In the absence of execution of the decree dated 24.05.1979, the petitioners cannot be treated as occupiers of the property in question and in the opinion of this Court, they became tenant in the property in question when the respondent-plaintiffs had purchased the property in the year 1969. In the absence of execution of the decree dated 24.05.1979, the petitioners cannot be treated as occupiers of the property in question and in the opinion of this Court, they became tenant in the property in question when the respondent-plaintiffs had purchased the property in the year 1969. In such circumstances, the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected and hence rejected. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In view of the above observations, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******