JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner non-applicant against whom the Rent Tribunal passed impugned order dated. 16.7.2010 in Rent Case No. 28/20S whereby the Rent Tribunal accepted the application filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and passed decree of eviction from the shop question, so also, judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner Appeal-Decree No. 105/2010 by which the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Section 19 of the Act of 2001. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the judgment impugned are not in consonance with law for the reason that no case under Section 9-A of the Act is made out to prove the ground of default. Further, it is submitted that no default was made by the petitioner, so also, in the notice given by the respondent-applicant there is no assertion with regard to not tendering the amount by the petitioner which is condition precedent under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 for eviction, therefore, both the judgments impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the learned Trial Court has not considered very important fact that there is material contradiction with regard to amount due, therefore, obviously it is a case in which there is total non-appreciation of the evidence by both the Tribunals. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly invited attention of this Court that in identical case the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) set aside the judgment rendered by The Rent Tribunal and judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge, Akola) affirming the judgment of the Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Akola in Maharashtra State. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no such plea with regard to non-compliance of Section 9 is pleaded before the Courts below; more so, in the reply filed to the application filed under Section 9 of the Act for eviction, it is pleaded by the petitioner non-applicant that no rent was due; meaning thereby, the ground for which learned Counsel for the petitioner is raising voice was not available to the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. 5. 5. Similarly, for determination of the rent due both the Courts below elaborately considered the entire evidence, therefore, the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner of the High Court of Bombay in the case of New Laxmi Cycle Company v. Jagdish Chandra Amrut Lal Vakharia is not applicable in this case. 6. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding given by both the Courts below.Therefore, this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******