JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of judgment dated 26.08.2019, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, H.P. in Rent Appeal No.2-S/13(b) fo 2019, vide which learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. in Objection Petition No.38-6 of 2017, dated 27.03.2019. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondent/ Decree Holder had filed an Eviction Petition against the present petitioners, i.e. Eviction Petition No.8-2 of 1996/95, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 07.07.1997. It is admitted case of the parties that the order of eviction so passed by the learned Rent Controller has attained finality as the same was not assailed by the present petitioners. 3. When Decree Holder approached the learned Executing Court for execution of the order so passed by the learned Rent Controller, objections were filed by the present petitioners inter alia on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 4. Objections so filed by the present petitioners were dismissed by the learned Rent Controller/Executing Court vide order dated 27.03.2019, by holding that the documents placed on record by the parties demonstrated that in an appeal which was filed before the Settlement Commissioner, certified copy of which was on record as Ext.AZ-1, by the objector himself, they had taken the stand that they were the tenants of Decree Holder. Besides this, the learned Executing Court also held that during cross-examination, the Judgment Debtors had admitted to be tenants of deceased Bawa Rattan Singh. 5. On these basis, learned Executing Court held that it was quite evident that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the findings so returned by the learned Executing Court, petitioners herein filed an appeal. 7. Said appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2019, by holding that there were admissions of the objectors on record to the effect that they were tenants in the demised premises of Bawa Jung Bahadur, which demonstrated that relationship of landlord and tenant between Bawa Jung Bahadur and the appellants therein i.e. the present petitioners, stood established. On these basis, learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings returned by the learned Executing Court that there was no dispute that there was in fact relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties and accordingly, the learned Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the learned Executing Court by holding that there was no illegality in the same. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this Revision Petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has again argued before this Court that the orders passed by the learned Executing Court as well as the judgment by the learned Appellate Authority are not sustainable in the eyes of law as both the learned Courts below have erred in returning the findings that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no infirmity with the orders either passed by the learned Executing Court or the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as the findings returned therein were duly borne out from the record of the case. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the order passed by the learned Executing Court and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 12. It is not in dispute that the order of eviction was passed against the present petitioners as far back as in the year 1997. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, they were proceeded against ex parte by the learned Rent Controller. 13. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that even if the petitioners herein were proceeded against ex parte before the learned Rent Controller, they had legal options available with them as to how to deal with the said orders. As of now, the factual position is that the order of eviction so passed by the learned Rent Controller has attained finality and is thus binding between the Judgment Debtor and Decree Holder. But of course, the order of eviction stands passed by the learned Rent Controller as it came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. These findings, I reiterate, have not been challenged before the superior authority as envisaged under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. 14. But of course, the order of eviction stands passed by the learned Rent Controller as it came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. These findings, I reiterate, have not been challenged before the superior authority as envisaged under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. 14. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Executing Court while deciding the objections filed by the present petitioners, demonstrates that by relying upon the material which was placed before the learned Executing Court in the course of adjudication of the said Objection Petition, learned Court came to the conclusion that in fact there were admissions on the part of the Judgment Debtors on record, wherein they had admitted the Decree Holder to be their landlord. On these basis, contention of the objector that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was dismissed. Learned Appellate Court has reiterated these findings again by placing reliance upon the evidence on record. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that the findings so returned either by the learned Executing Court or by the learned Appellate Court were perverse or not borne out from the record. In other words, the findings returned by the learned Executing Court as upheld by the learned Appellate Court that there were admissions of the Judgment Debtors themselves that Decree Holder was their landlord, is a matter of record. 16. That being so, this Court has no option but to concur with the findings so returned by the learned Executing Court as upheld by the learned Appellate Court as it cannot be said that either of the Courts below have erred while dismissing the objections so filed by the present petitioners. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents informs the Court that the order of eviction stands complied with as the possession of the property has been handed over by the present petitioners to the respondent/ landlord. His statement is taken on record. 18. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any, also stand disposed of.