JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned judgment Annex.-4 dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Case No. 85/2003, so also, the judgment dated 10.7.2013 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Appeal No. 44/2011 filed by respondent No. I applicant under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner-tenant. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Order 41, Rule 27 , C.P.C. was filed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara to bring subsequent facts on record with regard to having alternate premises during the pendency of the present litigation which is said to be filed on the ground of bona-fide necessity but the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal without deciding the said application decided the appeal which is totally illegal. On this ground, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of bona fide necessity is now not existing for which the eviction application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, therefore, both the orders impugned may be quashed. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is guilty of making concealment of fact that in the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 , C.P.C. subsequent facts with regard to fulfilment of the bona fide necessity was brought to the notice of the Court and prayed for taking certain documents on record; but, in fact, on the same ground an application under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner in which the same prayer was made but, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the said application was withdrawn by the petitioner. However, this fact was not disclosed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same plea. 4. However, this fact was not disclosed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same plea. 4. After perusing the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 , C.P.C. and copy of the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 produced before me for perusal, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not only misled this Court while making concealment of fact with regard to filing application under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. which was subsequently withdrawn but further persuaded this Court that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has not decided the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 , C.P.C. Therefore, on this ground, no interference is called for. 5. Further, it is necessary to observe that in view of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal are not bound to abide by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Of course, both the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal can be guided by the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure so as to entertain such application by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, upon prayer made by the petitioner for granting some breathing time to vacate the premises in question, 1 deem it appropriate to grant time to the petitioner to hand over peaceful possession on or before 31.8.2014 and, for that purpose, the petitioner shall furnish undertaking before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order narrating therein that the peaceful possession of the premises in question shall be handed over to the respondent No. 1 on or before 31.8.2014 and rent will be paid accordingly month by month. It is made clear that in the vent of violating above terms and conditions and not complying with this order within stipulated time, the respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to file contempt petition before this Court.Petition dismissed. *******