JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. The instant special appeal has been preferred by appellant writ petitioner Smt. Leela Devi for assailing judgment dated 13.09.2019, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13212/2019 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner and affirming judgments dated 05.08.2019, passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and 19.09.2018, passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the Rent Tribunal had allowed the eviction petition preferred by respondent and directed eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises. The order of Rent Tribunal was affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for assailing both these judgments stands dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2019. 2. The appellant's counsel, Shri J. Gehlot vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned judgments are perverse and bad in the eyes of law and therefore the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. He urged that Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal failed to apply mind to the significant evidence available on record, which fortifies the appellant's case. The fact that the rent agreement dated 14.01.2007 was fabricated was duly proved by the expert's report, wherein an opinion was expressed that the rent agreement did not bear signatures of the appellant. However, the expert's report was not considered in the correct perspective by the learned Single Judge and both the tribunals, and hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. Shri Gehlot also urged that respondent failed to lead proper evidence so as to establish the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between her and the appellant-petitioner and thus also there was no justification for directing eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. He, therefore, urges that the appeal deserves to be admitted. 3. Per contra, Shri N.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Smt. Kamla (landlord) vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Gehlot and raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant appeal. He referred to a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Shyam Narain Mehra & Bros. Per contra, Shri N.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Smt. Kamla (landlord) vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Gehlot and raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant appeal. He referred to a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Shyam Narain Mehra & Bros. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ Petition No.345/2015) decided on 29.07.2015 and urged that it has been conclusively laid down in the above case that an intra Court appeal does not lie against the judgment passed by learned Single Bench in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of landlord-tenant dispute decided by Rent Tribunal and an appeal thereafter decided by Appellate Rent Tribunal under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. 4. Shri Choudhary further contended that two Tribunals and a Single Bench of this Court duly applied their mind to the entire material available on record and have reached to the following concurrent findings of fact :- 1. The existence of landlord-tenant relationship between Fateh Kanwar and the appellant was admitted. Respondent-Smt. Kamla purchased the premises from Fateh Kanwar where after a fresh rent agreement was executed between Smt. Kamla and the appellant herein on 14.01.2007. 2. That the appellant took a total frivolous stand before Tribunal that she was owner of the property and not its tenant and the premise had been gifted to her by Smt. Fateh Kanwar by way of an oral gift. Contrary to this stand, the appellant admitted deposition before the Rent Tribunal that the premises in question had been let out to her by Fateh Kanwar. 3. Admittedly, the appellant failed to pay rent of the premises to respondent-landlord for the disputed period & thus her eviction was rightly directed as per Section 9 of the Rent Control Act. 5. He, thus, urges that this Court should be loathe to interfere in concurrent findings of fact while considering the matter in its extraordinary Letters Patent jurisdiction. On these grounds, Shri Choudhary has sought dismissal of the appeal. 6. To counter the preliminary objection raised by Shri Choudhary, Shri Gehlot relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs. On these grounds, Shri Choudhary has sought dismissal of the appeal. 6. To counter the preliminary objection raised by Shri Choudhary, Shri Gehlot relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ganga Shanker Solanki & Anr., 2009 2 DNJ 1041 (Raj) and urged that in the said case, an appeal filed against the order dismissing the writ petition in which validity of the orders passed by Rent Tribunals was not only entertained but was allowed. Thus, as per him, the objection regarding no maintainability of this appeal has no merit whatsoever. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material placed on record. 8. We are convinced that the preliminary objection raised by Shri Choudhary regarding maintainability of the instant appeal has to be sustained. A Division Bench of this Court examined this very issue in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Supra) and while adverting to the provisions of Rule 134(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1952"), it was conclusively held that in a case, arising out of a judgment passed by Rent Tribunal and affirmed by Appellate Rent Tribunal and learned Single Judge, while exercising supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the further entertainment of a special appeal was barred by virtue of Rule 134(1) of the Rules of 1952. While deciding this issue, the Hon'ble Division Bench relied upon two decisions of Supreme Court in cases of Jacky V/s Tiny Alias Antony & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 508 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 . The ratio of these two judgments was considered to conclude that intracourt appeal does not lie in these circumstances. 9. Suffice it to say that the judgment, relied upon by Shri Gehlot in case of Arun Kumar (Supra), was delivered before the Supreme Court had decided the controversy in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (Supra). Thus, the view taken in the said judgment which otherwise also does not deal with the issue of maintainability has to be considered as impliedly overruled. 10. Thus, the view taken in the said judgment which otherwise also does not deal with the issue of maintainability has to be considered as impliedly overruled. 10. In spite of the fact that the appeal is not maintainable, we have examined the merits of the case and find that the concurrent findings of fact recorded in judgment dated 13.09.2019 rendered by the learned Single Bench affirming judgment dated 05.08.2019, passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal and judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed by Rent Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or misreading of evidence. The findings recorded in all the three judgments regarding existence of landlord-tenant relationship between respondent and appellant; the appellant's failure to prove that the rent-deed was forged and her failure to pay the rent requiring her eviction on account of breach of Section 9(1) of the Rent Control Act are based on cogent and clinching appreciation of evidence available on record. As the appellant failed to make payment of the rent to respondent landlord for the disputed period, the mandatory provisions of the Rent Control Act became operational and there was no other option but to direct the appellant's eviction from the rented premises. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find no ground to entertain this intra-court appeal which is dismissed on merits as well as the same is not maintainable. 12. No order as to costs.