ORDER : 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by Rent Appellate Tribunal, Kota in Appeal No. 13/2017, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-tenant against the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by Rent Tribunal, Kota was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the cross objections submitted by the respondent landlord was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Kota which was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota vide order dated 04.09.2013. The respondent landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota which was allowed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2015. 3. The petitioner-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2015 filed an S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5991/2015 before this court which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this court, vide order dated 17.09.2016 and the petitioner-tenant was allowed 18 months’ time to vacate the disputed premises. In compliance of the order dated 17.09.2016 the petitioner-tenant has filed an undertaking before the executing court i.e. Rent Tribunal, Kota. 4. Before the executing court the petitioner tenant again filed an application mentioning therein that one room of the disputed property is situated at the first floor of the house and the possession of the said room may not be taken from the petitioner tenant as no decree has been passed in this regard by the Rent Tribunal, Kota. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 13.04.2017 issued the warrant of possession according to decree passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2017 the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota and the respondent-landlord also filed cross objections in the said appeal and prayed for possession of whole disputed premises in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2015 and also in compliance of the order passed by this court on 17.09.2016 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5991/2015. 6. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota vide order dated 07.02.2018 allowed the cross objection submitted by the respondent-landlord and dismissed the appeal submitted by the petitioner tenant. The Appellate Rent Tribunal further directed that the respondent landlord is entitled for possession of the whole disputed premises. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. 6. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota vide order dated 07.02.2018 allowed the cross objection submitted by the respondent-landlord and dismissed the appeal submitted by the petitioner tenant. The Appellate Rent Tribunal further directed that the respondent landlord is entitled for possession of the whole disputed premises. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the court below is against the law as the learned court below cannot direct to execute the decree beyond the original judgment and decree passed with regard to the disputed premises. 9. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment and decree was passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal for the disputed premises and the room for which the petitioner-tenant is now making a dispute is situated at first floor of the house and the said room is also included in the disputed property as no separate way is available for the said room. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties and also pursue the record. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is not accepted for the reasons that the petitioner tenant challenged the original decree of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota before this Hon’ble Court by filing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5991/2015 which was decided on 17.09.2016, wherein the petitioner tenant agreed to vacate the disputed premises within a period of 18 months and on his consent the first writ petition was disposed of. The agreed order dated 17.09.2016 is reproduced as under :- “During the course of arguments, the learned advocates appearing for the parties, have jointly submitted that they have sorted out dispute between petitioner-tenant and respondent-landlord and they have arrived at agreement that in case eighteen-months time is granted to the petitioner/tenant to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises, that will serve ends of justice. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that due sanctity ought to be granted to the broad consensus arrived during the course of arguments between the counsel for the parties. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that due sanctity ought to be granted to the broad consensus arrived during the course of arguments between the counsel for the parties. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as prayed, the present writ petition is, hereby, disposed of by issuing following directions, on the basis of broad consensus arrived at between the counsel for the parties:- (i) That petitioner/tenant shall file an undertaking before Rent Controller that he shall vacate the premises within eighteen-months from filing of undertaking before the Rent Controller. (ii) That the petitioner/tenant shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller on or before 04.10.2016. (iii) That on 04.10.2016, before the Executing Court petitioner/tenant shall deposit entire arrears of rent, if due, along with 9% interest. (iv) That petitioner/tenant shall specifically state in the undertaking that he shall pay the rent in advance for each month on or before 7th day of each month. (v) That in the undertaking, it shall also be specifically stated that in case, the petitioner/tenant commits two consecutive defaults, the executing Court shall proceed with the eviction of petitioner/tenant in accordance with the provisions of law. (vi) That petitioner/tenant shall also specifically state in the undertaking that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises in good condition to the respondent within eighteen months commencing from 04.10.2016. Upon dismissal of main petition, the stay application, filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed.” 11. Scope of article 227 of the Constitution of India has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Umesh Jain and another Vs. Rajmal Jain reported in 2016 (1) W.L.C. 183 wherein it has been held as under:- “16. The Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta and Another - (1975) 1 SCC 858 , while dealing with supervisory power of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that if an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of the record, cannot be corrected by means of a writ of certiorari, it should follow a fortiori that it is not subject to correction by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227. The power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact, which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, convert itself into a court of appeal, when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. 20. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil - (2010) 8 SCC 329 , after dealing with plethora of previous case law, the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. A petition under Article 226 is different than a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two Articles is also different.” 12. Since the petitioner tenant himself agreed to vacate the disputed premises, therefore, in my considered opinion the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing of the order dated 07.02.2018. 13. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.