JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner tenant (for short, 'tenant') and perused the judgment dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer inter-alia issuing a certificate of possession in favour of the respondent landlord (for short 'landlord') and an order of eviction against the tenant on the ground of default as also bonafide and reasonable necessity which has been affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 8.6.2017. 2. Perused the impugned judgments and documents annexed to the petition. 3. From the eviction petition, which is annexed with the petition, it is evident that the landlord inter-alia asserted that the tenanted premises had been let out to the tenant on 1.7.1973 @ Rs. 225/- per month for residential purposes. Water and electricity charges were to be paid separately by the tenant. That assertion in the eviction petition was not denied. In-fact, even an issue with regard to landlord-tenant relationship between the applicant and the non applicant was not struck before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer. 4. The Rent Tribunal then found from the evidence on record that the rent of the tenanted premises had not been paid since 1993 despite Ex.-4, a registered notice under the proviso to Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 demanding payment of arrears of rent for over four months. The Tribunal, therefore, found a case of default being made out against the tenant and under its judgment dated 6.3.2012 directed eviction, as has been affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 5. Mr. S.C. Goyal, counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have committed a gross perversity in not taking into consideration Ex.A/1 filed by the tenant, wherein the husband of the landlord since deceased had admittedly received a sum of Rs. 85,000/- towards the repair of the tenanted premises and undertaken not to make any recovery of the rent till it was fully adjusted. 6. I find no force in the contention. The applicant Rama Garg being the landlord of the tenant, any money transaction, for whatever its authenticity, between the tenant and Rama Devi's husband had no relevance to the obligation of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord. Non payment constituted default in payment of rent. 6. I find no force in the contention. The applicant Rama Garg being the landlord of the tenant, any money transaction, for whatever its authenticity, between the tenant and Rama Devi's husband had no relevance to the obligation of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord. Non payment constituted default in payment of rent. In the instant case it continued for years on end what of four months non payment of which despite notice under the proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 within 30 days of receipt makes out in law a ground for the tenant's eviction. I am of the considered view that in the circumstances, on the admitted fact that no rent due for over four months was paid by the tenant to the landlord within 30 days of receipt of the notice under the proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001, a case of default was duly made out and his eviction rightly directed. Neither the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer nor the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in the facts of the case and evidence thereon have committed any perversity or illegality in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. I am also of the view that on the issue of bonafide and reasonable necessity, the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have arrived at concurrent finding of fact to the landlord's advantage. From perusal of the evidence, the said finding cannot be displaced within the limited jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of its superintending powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. There is no force in the petition. Dismissed.