JUDGMENT : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Madan Lal (tenant) has approached this Court in order to assail the judgment (Annex.22) dated 9.11.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Control Case No.310/2004 titled as Smt. Nandu Devi & Anr. v. Madanlal directing eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises as affirmed vide judgment (Annex.25) dated 5.11.2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Appeal No.24/2014. 2. Facts in brief are noted herein below for the sake of ready reference :- Smt. Nandu Devi w/o late Shri Badrilal and Shri Kanhaiya Lal s/o late Shri Badrilal being the legal heirs of the landlord Shri Badri lal, filed an application under the Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises being a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as for bona fide and personal necessity. Facts preceding filing of the aforesaid eviction application have a material bearing on the controversy and are thus narrated herein after. 3. A suit for injunction came to be filed by the petitioner Madan Lal against Badrilal (since deceased) alleging inter alia that cabin no.15 situated to the south of Gole Piau, Bhilwara was allotted to Badrilal by the Municipal Board, Bhilwara who in turn constructed a shop thereupon which was let out to Madan Lal for a rent of Rs.150/- per month. The rent was raised to Rs.300/- per month in the year 1974 and to Rs.400/- per month in the year 1987. The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against the landlord Badrilal who was allegedly attempting to evict Madan Lal from rented premises by force and without taking recourse of the lawful procedure. Badrilal contested the suit with a plea in the written statement that no relation of landlord and tenant existed between him and Madan Lal. It was asserted that the shop was given to Madan Lal on contract basis from 7.5.1987 onwards for a consideration of Rs.500/- per month. Badrilal further claimed that as the shop had been given on contract basis, failure of the lessee to pay consideration of Rs.500/- per month gave him a right to resume possession thereof. It was asserted that the shop was given to Madan Lal on contract basis from 7.5.1987 onwards for a consideration of Rs.500/- per month. Badrilal further claimed that as the shop had been given on contract basis, failure of the lessee to pay consideration of Rs.500/- per month gave him a right to resume possession thereof. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the suit premises was let out to him by the defendant on the last rent of Rs.400/- per month. The trial Court also repelled the plea of the defendant that the shop in question had been given to the plaintiff on contract at a consideration of Rs.500/- per month. The suit came to be rejected by judgment dated 13.1.1999. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff Madan Lal against the said judgment which was rejected by the appellate Court on 3.3.2003. The plaintiff Madan Lal approached this Court by way of second appeal no.115/2003 challenging the aforesaid two judgments. By that time, Badrilal had passed away and thus, his legal representatives (the respondents herein) were impleaded as party respondents in the second appeal which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 3.12.2003 in the following terms :- “11. In view of the above, it is held that both the courts below mis-interpreted the receipts contained in Ex.1 and Ex.2 and the finding recorded by the two courts below on issue no.1 vitiates and it is held that the plaintiff is tenant of the defendant Badrilal and rent of the premises is Rs.405/- per month. 12. In view of the above, this appeal succeeds, hence allowed and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed, hence decreed. The defendants, now legal representatives of the landlord Badrilal are restrained from evicting the plaintiff-appellant from the suit premises without following due process of law. No order as to costs.” 4. From these findings recorded by this Court while deciding the second appeal, it is evident that Badrilal was held to be the landlord of the disputed shop which had been let out to the petitioner Madan Lal on the rent of Rs.405/- p.m. In this background, Badrilal’s legal representatives (wife and son) assumed the character of landlords after death of Shri Badrilal. In spite of the above findings recorded by this Court, the petitioner failed to make payment of due rent to the landlords whereupon the questioned proceedings under the Rent Control Act came to be instituted seeking eviction of the petitioner on ground of default in payment of rent and other grounds. In reply to the application for eviction preferred on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner again took a stand denying the relationship of tenant and landlord between himself and the respondents (L.Rs. of Badrilal). It was also pleaded that the respondent Kanhaiya Lal is not the adopted son of late Badrilal and is not entitled to claim any relief in that capacity. Madan Lal further claimed that the shop in question had subsequently been allotted to him by Municipal Board, Bhilwara on 99 years lease vide allotment order dated 22.3.2007 and as such, he virtually being the owner could not be evicted from the suit premises. Thus, claiming to have become the owner of the shop, the petitioner contested the application for eviction. The Rent Tribunal framed the following issues for determination :- ^^1- vk;k vthZ ds pj.k la0 3 esa of.kZr ifjlj izR;FkhZ ds ikl lu~ 1968 ls :0 150 ekgokj fdjk;s ij gS\ 2- vk;k vthZnkj fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk iqujhf{kr fdjk;k :0 1245-64 ekgokj fu/kkZfjr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k izR;FkhZ us fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk fdjk;k pkj ekg ;k mlls vf/kd vof/k dk fdjk;k vnk u djds fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;fDrdze fd;k gS\ 4- vk;k izR;FkhZ us vthZnkj dks Hkw&Lokeh ekuus ls badkj dj fn;k gS\ 5- vk;k fookfnr ifjlj ij jkt0 fdjk;k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gS vr% ,oa nkok ekuuh; fdjk;k vf/kdj.k dks lquus dk Jo.kkf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS\ 6- vk;k vthZnkj dks oknxzLr laifRr dh Lo;a ,oa vius dqVqEc ds O;olk; ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko';drk gS\^^ 5. Since the petitioner had admittedly stopped paying rent to the landlord Badrilal and thereafter to his legal representatives, the issues no.1 and 3 were decided in favour of the landlord plaintiff and against the petitioner. The Tribunal further went to hold that the leasing out of the disputed shop to the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Bhilwara was not relevant for deciding the controversy because the said act was a subsequent event and could not affect the crystallised rights of the parties. Thus issue no.5 was also decided against the petitioner. The Tribunal further went to hold that the leasing out of the disputed shop to the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Bhilwara was not relevant for deciding the controversy because the said act was a subsequent event and could not affect the crystallised rights of the parties. Thus issue no.5 was also decided against the petitioner. The Tribunal also decided the issue no.4 in favour of the plaintiff landlord and concluded that stance of the petitioner tenant in denying status of landlord to the L.Rs. of Badrilal on the suit premises gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the tenant was interfering in the title of the landlord on the suit premises and as such, the landlord was entitled to eviction of the tenant on this ground as well. The issue no.6 regarding bona fide and personal necessity was left undecided as the Tribunal allowed the application and directed eviction of the petitioner tenant on other grounds vide judgment dated 9.11.2013 (Annex.22). The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara against the said judgment. The Appellate Rent Tribunal heard the parties, examined the record, re-appreciated the entire evidence and arrived to its own independent conclusion that the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal in the impugned judgment were perfectly just and legal and thereupon, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected vide judgment dated 5.11.2016 (Annex.25). 6. These two judgments are under challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by invoking the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It deserves a mention here that the respondent Kanhaiya Lal challenged the leasing out of the disputed shop to Madan Lal by the Municipal Board, Bhilwara by preferring an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act which was rejected by the District Collector, Bhilwara for lack of jurisdiction vide order dated 26.12.2007. The revision preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer against the order of the District Collector, Bhilwara was also dismissed. Kanhaiya Lal has thereafter filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara which is reportedly pending. 8. Learned counsel Shri Vinay Jain representing the petitioner vehemently urged that relationship of landlord tenant between the L.Rs. The revision preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer against the order of the District Collector, Bhilwara was also dismissed. Kanhaiya Lal has thereafter filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara which is reportedly pending. 8. Learned counsel Shri Vinay Jain representing the petitioner vehemently urged that relationship of landlord tenant between the L.Rs. of Badrilal (the respondent herein) and the petitioner stood automatically extinguished as the shop in question was leased out to Madan Lal by the Municipal Board, Bhilwara in the year 2007. He urged that as the petitioner has become the owner of the suit premises, thus he cannot be evicted there from. Relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. v. Bibi Husn Bano and Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2857 , he urged that the ownership on the suit property overrides tenancy rights. A person cannot simultaneously be owner and tenant of the same property. He urged that pursuant to the above mentioned significant and subsequent development through which, the petitioner became absolute owner of the suit premises, the issue no.4 could not have been decided against him. He also challenged the status of the respondent Kanhaiyalal as a landlord claiming that he was not the validly adopted son of Badrilal and as such, had no right/status to seek eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. He thus prayed that the impugned judgments are grossly illegal and suffer from error apparent on the face of record and deserve to be set aside while accepting the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Dr. Sachin Acharya assisted by Shri Sridhar Mehta, Advocate vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He contended that the issues regarding status of the landlord and tenant between Badrilal and the petitioner and that regarding Kanhaiyalal being the adopted son of Badrilal stood concluded in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation instituted interse between the parties. He contended that the issues regarding status of the landlord and tenant between Badrilal and the petitioner and that regarding Kanhaiyalal being the adopted son of Badrilal stood concluded in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation instituted interse between the parties. He further urged that as the petitioner tenant admittedly failed to pay rent to the landlord and as he has disputed the very status of Kanhaiyalal the adopted son of Badrilal as the landlord of the shop in question, the impugned judgments deserve to be upheld while dismissing the writ petition and the petitioner should be forthwith evicted from the suit premises. 10. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 11. Since the factual aspects regarding the petitioner tenant (a) having failed to make payment of rent to the respondent landlord and (b) disputing the status of the respondent as the landlord ; are admitted, the controversy which needs adjudication by this Court is encircled in a very short compass. 12. Thrust of the arguments advanced by Shri Vinay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that since the shop in question was owned by Municipal Board Bhilwara and was related to the petitioner Madan Lal in the year 2007, the respondent, even if he is admitted to be the successor of Badrilal, lost all rights on the shop and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to retain possession thereof and cannot be evicted by taking recourse to provisions of Rent Control Act. However, he had no option but to candidly concede that the finding recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 3.12.2003 in second appeal no.115/2003 to the effect that there existed a status of landlord and tenant interse between Badrilal and Madan Lal, was not challenged any further and has attained finality. In the said judgment, this Court further held that Kanhaiyalal and Smt. Nandu Devi are the legal heirs of Badrilal and they would not be entitled to evict Madanlal without following the due process of law. 13. In this background and testing the facts of the case at hand on anvil of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Satyanarayana. 13. In this background and testing the facts of the case at hand on anvil of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Satyanarayana. v. P. Jagadish reported in (1987) 4 SCC 424 , this Court is of the view that the writ petition has to fail. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment that the tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord cannot deny the landlord’s title, however, defective it may be so long as he has not been openly provided possession by the landlord. It was further held that the appellants therein who were the tenants would have to surrender possession to the landlord before they could be allowed to challenge his title. The same is the situation in the case at hand. The petitioner has questioned the very title of the landlord on the suit premises and admittedly stopped making payment of the rent for a period well in excess of four months despite receiving the statutory notice and thus, the Rent Tribunal was totally justified in deciding the issue no.3 against the petitioner. 14. The allotment of the disputed shop to the petitioner has been challenged by the respondent and the civil suit filed for that purpose is reportedly pending. The conduct of the Municipal Board in allotting the shop to the petitioner during the pendency of the instant litigation is questionable. Nevertheless, any finding in this regard at this stage may prejudice rights of the parties to that litigation and thus, this Court refrains from doing so. 15. Be that as it may. The petitioner has no option but to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent and then in case, the allotment of the shop made to him by the Municipal Council receives approval of the civil Court, he would have to seek remedy of possession by filing a suit against Kanhaiya Lal. 16. Detailed and well reasoned findings of facts recorded by the Rent Tribunal in the judgment dated 9.11.2013 have been affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 5.11.2016 after re-appreciation of evidence and material available on record by assigning cogent reasons. 16. Detailed and well reasoned findings of facts recorded by the Rent Tribunal in the judgment dated 9.11.2013 have been affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 5.11.2016 after re-appreciation of evidence and material available on record by assigning cogent reasons. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below in the impugned judgments can neither be termed as perverse or arbitrary nor do they suffer from error apparent on the face of record so as to require interference in exercise of the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. 17. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall forthwith and not later than two months from today, hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and shall also make payment of the due rent & mesne profits to the respondent, failing which the respondent shall be entitled to take recourse of summary eviction proceedings and also to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Stay petition also stands dismissed.