ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’) against the judgment dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan in Appeal No. 91/20017, whereby the appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed and the judgment dated 1.6.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur allowing the respondents-landlord’s (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’) application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’) and issuing certificate of possession has been affirmed. 2. Facts of the case are that the original applicant-landlord filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the tenant. During the pendency of the original application, the original applicant expired and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 28.11.2011 allowed the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, passed the eviction order against the tenant and directed to issue certificate for recovery of possession. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 1.4.2015 partly allowed the appeal and while setting aside issue no.1 framed by the Rent Tribunal in Original Application No. 1245/2004, quashed the eviction order passed against the tenant and remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal with a direction to re-frame issue no.1 and after giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence, record the evidence and hearing the parties concerned, decide the matter afresh qua issue no.1 in accordance with law. 3. The Rent Tribunal having taken into consideration the fact that the Ex.-5 notice was received by the tenant on 14.7.2004 and the amount of rent due was deposited by the tenant on 2.9.2004 i.e. after the prescribed period of 30, whereas he was required to deposit the rent within 30 days in terms of Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Accordingly certificate of possession was issued. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29.11.2017 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 1.6.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal. 4. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Accordingly certificate of possession was issued. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29.11.2017 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 1.6.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal. 4. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the tenant submits that Order 41 Rule 25 CPC becomes operative when the appellate court comes to the conclusion that there was omission on the part of the lower court to frame or try any issue. Once the appellate court directed the lower Court to do so, it was incumbent upon the trial court to take additional evidence so required. Therefore, it was the duty of the lower court to act strictly as per the mandate of the appellate court and especially when the suit was remanded, it was imperative for the lower court to take new evidence related to the new issue so framed. He further submits that the original suit was filed by the plaintiff Mohd. Suleman Teli, whereas Mohd. Shafi Mansoori gave evidence as Power of Attorney of Mohd. Suleman Teli. He submits that a power of attorney holder can appear and plead and act on behalf of the party, but he cannot become witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. He further submits that it is no more res-integra that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney holder to act on behalf of the principal. He further submits that Ex.-43 postal receipt has not been duly proved by the landlord, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. However, the learned courts below have utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. He further submits that Ex.-43 postal receipt has not been duly proved by the landlord, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. However, the learned courts below have utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (I) K. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs. Anjum Jehan and others reported in 2013 AIR Scw 3561 (II) Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Versus IndusInd Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439 (III) Vidhyadhar vs. Mankikrao and another reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 (IV) Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and other reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 314 (V) Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1796 (VI) Raku @ Rajkumar Versus State of Rajasthan – S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 716/2016; decided on 11.8.2017 (VII) Ashwin and others Versus The State of Maharashtra reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri.) 4167 (VIII) Mrs. Surender Bala & Anr. Versus M/s. Sandeep Foam Industries P. Ltd. reported in AIR 2000 Delhi 300 (IX) Smt. Bachchan Devi and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and Anr. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1282 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. He further submits that there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised where there is patent illegality or perversity, which is not the situation here in this case. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. Before proceeding further in the matter, I would like to deal with the judgments relied on by the counsel for the tenant. 10. The judgment passed in the case of K. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs. Anjum Jehan and others (supra) does not apply to the instant case for the reason that said case was related to specific performance of a sale agreement, which is not the situation in the instant case. 11. 10. The judgment passed in the case of K. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs. Anjum Jehan and others (supra) does not apply to the instant case for the reason that said case was related to specific performance of a sale agreement, which is not the situation in the instant case. 11. The judgment passed in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Versus Indusind Bank Ltd. (supra) does not apply to the facts of the instant case for the reason that the said case was related to recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the husbands of appellant wives, whereas present matter is an eviction petition. 12. In Vidhyadhar vs. Mankikrao and another (supra) the suit was instituted for possession on the basis of Sale deed, whereas present case is for eviction of tenant from the rented property. 13. In Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and other (supra), criminal proceedings were initiated and the age of accused was in question, which is nowhere the situation in this case. 14. Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit (supra) also does not apply to the facts of this case as the aforementioned case pertained to the Representation of the people Act wherein the candidate was an elector of a different constituency. 15. Raku @ Rajkumar Versus State of Rajasthan (supra) was a criminal case dealing with Indian Penal code 1860 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 whereas the present case pertains to Rajasthan Rent Control Act. 16. Ashwin and others Versus The State of Maharashtra (supra) was also a criminal case whereas present case is an eviction matter. 17. Mrs. Surender Bala & Anr. Versus M/s. Sandeep Foam Industries P. Ltd. case dealt with lease of property whereas present case is about renting out of premises. 18. Smt. Bachchan Devi and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and Anr. (supra) talks about framing of additional issues and the powers of appellate court, which is not the situation here as in this case the Rent Tribunal and the Appellant Rent Tribunal are not bound by the procedure of CPC as laid down under section 21 of Rent Control Act 2001. 19. While adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 1.6.2017 categorically observed that on receiving the matter from the Appellate Rent Tribunal, as per direction, issue no. 19. While adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 1.6.2017 categorically observed that on receiving the matter from the Appellate Rent Tribunal, as per direction, issue no. 1 was framed and both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence, but the landlord did not wish to produce any evidence with regard to the aforesaid issue and the evidence already produced was stated to be sufficient. Contrarily in order to prove the said issue, the tenant submitted an additional affidavit of DW-2 Mohd. Salim, who was cross-examined by the landlord. After completing the evidence, final arguments were heard with regard to issue no.1. In this way, it was amply clear that as per the direction of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal re-framed issue no.1 and after giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence, recorded the evidence and after hearing them, decided the matter afresh qua issue no.1. Thus, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the tenant with regard to Order 41 Rule 25 CPC is not tenable. 20. So far as the objection raised by the tenant with regard to Power of Attorney is concerned, the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 1.6.2017 rightly observed that Power of Attorney Holder is the son of the landlord and the evidence given by the Power of Attorney Holder was based on documents, which were admitted to be in his knowledge by the Power of Attorney Holder Mohd. Shafiq. {see: Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs. Versus Hartar Singh Sangha reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512 }. In his affidavit, Power of Attorney of the landlord stated that he being the natural son, having knowledge in respect of all the facts of the case. He was not cross-examined in that regard. 21. It is relevant to mention here that on the one hand, the tenant is raising objection with regard to the Power of Attorney of the landlord, whereas he himself has produced additional evidence on issue no.1 through his power of attorney. 22. He was not cross-examined in that regard. 21. It is relevant to mention here that on the one hand, the tenant is raising objection with regard to the Power of Attorney of the landlord, whereas he himself has produced additional evidence on issue no.1 through his power of attorney. 22. Before the Rent Tribunal, the tenant in his cross-examination categorically admitted that Ex.-5 notice was received by him and on Ex.-43 it was rightly written that the notice was received by him on 14.7.2004, but in order to cover up the 30 days period, as provided for in the Act of 2001, his power of attorney holder stated that the notice dated 13.7.2004 was received by the tenant on 3.8.2004 and rent was deposited on 2.9.2004. The Tribunal heard the arguments of both the parties and took into consideration Ex.-43 (information provided by the Postal Department to the landlord’s advocate), wherein it was specifically mentioned that the registered notice dated 13.7.2004 sent to the tenant was delivered to him on 14.7.2004. The said document was admitted to be correct by DW-1 Mohd. Salam in his evidence and no evidence in rebuttal thereto was given by him. 23. In this view of the matter, on the ground of default in payment of rent, the Rent Tribunal has rightly passed the decree of eviction against the tenant, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 24. I am in agreement with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal. 25. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised in cases of jurisdictional error, apparent perversity, patent illegality or manifest injustice, which is not the situation here in this case. 26. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 27. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.