JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 23.7.2008 (Annex.-6) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jalore whereby application filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 by the respondent was allowed by which the petitioner has been evicted from the premises in question situated near old bus-stand Jalore, measuring 20 x 15 ft. So also, order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 21.5.2009 (Annex.-8) whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirmed the judgment dated 13.7.2008. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the orders impugned in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be quashed because both the orders have been passed in very cursory manner without considering the evidence on record. Further, it is argued that a ' serious error has been committed by the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal while allowing the application filed under Section 9 because the decree of eviction can be passed only in case it has been proved that tenant has neither paid nor tendered amount of rent due from him on the ground of default. But, here, in this case, the respondent landlord has failed to prove that tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that decree was passed not only for default but decree has been passed while giving finding on issue No. 3 for causing nuisance by the petitioner without any basis and only on the basis of assumption, therefore, when respondent landlord has not proved issue No. 3 with regard to causing nuisance by the petitioner, then, obviously a grave error has been committed by the Rent Tribunal, jalore in passing impugned order against the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgments of this Court in the cases of Phool Chand & Anr. v. Dr. Gulab Chand, reported in 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 771 ; and, B.B. Bhalla v. Rameshwar Kishore Badhwar, reported in 2001(2) RLW (Raj.) 1194 : 2001 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 298 , and, submits that in view of the above adjudication made by this Court both the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. 5. v. Dr. Gulab Chand, reported in 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 771 ; and, B.B. Bhalla v. Rameshwar Kishore Badhwar, reported in 2001(2) RLW (Raj.) 1194 : 2001 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 298 , and, submits that in view of the above adjudication made by this Court both the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the finding of fact cannot be disturbed, so also, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in law. Here, in this case, the petitioner is insisting upon re-appreciating the evidence upon which the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner is not sustainable because the evidence cannot be re-appreciated. 6. With regard to the judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is required to be said that in both the cited cases the finding was given under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950; but, here, in this case, application was filed under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Therefore, those judgments are not applicable in the present controversy. In view of above, there is no force in this writ petition.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******