ORDER : Mr. Navin Sinha 1. The present appeal arises from order dated 23.08.2016 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13918/2015. The learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition declined to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal dated 04.07.2014 in Appeal No.14/2012 holding that the Respondent was the landlord of the property in question and remanded it to the Rent Controller for decision on the issue for bona fide need. 2. Learned counsel for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal relying on an order dated 29.07.2015 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.345/2015 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s. Shyam Narain Mehra & Brothers). It is submitted that the Division Bench with reference to Rule 134(i) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 had held that this Court essentially exercises powers of the Superintendence over an order of the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution against which no appeal will lie. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant relies upon (2015) 5 SCC 423 , Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. in support of the submission that an appeal would be barred only when an order has been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution over an order passed by a competent Civil Court exercising powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is next submitted that Section 19(11)(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 providing that the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal shall be final and no further appeal or revision shall lie does not bar the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was itself styled as one under Article 226 and not under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. We have considered the respective submissions but are not inclined to decide the same at this stage as we are of the considered opinion that piecemeal decisions would only continue to delay the eviction proceedings which must be given a finality either ways at the earliest rather than prolonged by offshoots of the primary litigation. 5. In the eviction suit, the Rent Controller had framed two issues. The first was (a) whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and (b) whether there was a bona fide need by the Respondent of the premises in question. 5. In the eviction suit, the Rent Controller had framed two issues. The first was (a) whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and (b) whether there was a bona fide need by the Respondent of the premises in question. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and dismissed the suit on that ground. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order with a finding to the contrary and remanded it to decide the question of bona fide need. 6. The eviction suit was filed way back in the year 2007. Piecemeal decisions have only delayed the disposal of the suit. It is always better to decide all issues cumulatively rather than to give a short shrift to a matter by deciding a single issue alone as done by the Rent Controller presently. Had he decided both the issues together, the eviction suit could have been given finality either ways by the Appellate Tribunal or this Court as the case may be. 7. Any interference with the order of remand by the Appellate Tribunal at this stage will only lead to further litigation without finality to the eviction suit. This observation however cannot be construed as any affirmation of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Till both the issues are not decided all possibilities remain open. It shall be open for the aggrieved to question the order of the Rent Controller on all issues including the issue with regard to the landlord tenant relationship after the Rent Controller passes any fresh orders. 8. Considering the age of the eviction suit, counsel for the parties are further agreed that the Rent Controller be directed to dispose the suit in accordance with law within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order unless the time is extended by the Court. The appeal is disposed with observations.