ORDER : 1. The petitioner assails the validity of the order dated 18.01.2018 passed in execution no.160/2012, whereby, the rent/mesne profit payable by the petitioner has been assessed till execution of the recovery certificate issued against him. 2. The facts in brief are that the application filed by the landlord-respondent under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 07.12.2011. The appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 07.12.2011 was dismissed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.07.2014. The writ petition No.10541/2014 against the eviction order was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.05.2015. 3. In the execution petition filed by the respondent/landlord, the petitioner tenant moved an application dated 17.09.2014 stating therein that his objection in the appeal as well as in the writ petition that the respondent-landlord has already taken possession of the suit shop on 25.12.2011 by putting his lock on the shop remained undecided and hence, he be permitted to lead evidence in this regard. This application was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 20.01.2015, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition no. 6069/2015 decided by this Court on 04.05.2017. The review petition No.211/2017 was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2018. 4. Thereafter, vide its order dated 18.01.2018, the learned Executing Court has held the petitioner liable to pay the rent/mesne profit till the date of execution of recovery certificate i.e. 28.01.2016. Challenging the order dated 18.01.2018, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the landlord has already taken over possession of the suit shop on 25.12.2011 by putting his lock, he was not liable to pay rent/mesne profit after that date. In the alternate, he submitted that he has already removed his two locks on 09.07.2015 when the Sale Amin has come to hand over possession of the suit shop to the decree holder and the learned Executing Court erred in awarding the rent/mesne profit for the period thereafter in favour of the respondent. He prayed that the order dated 18.01.2018 as well as the order dated 20.11.2018 rejecting the review petition seeking review of the order dated 18.01.2018, be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. He prayed that the order dated 18.01.2018 as well as the order dated 20.11.2018 rejecting the review petition seeking review of the order dated 18.01.2018, be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly misconceived and misplaced. A perusal of the order dated 04.05.2017, whereby, the writ petition no.6069/2015 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court reveals that taking cognizance of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was observed that the Appellate Court has, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the recovery certificate dated 07.12.2011, vide its judgment dated 07.07.2014, directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the rent premises to the respondent landlord within period of six months. In these circumstances, the submission of the petitioner that the landlord has already taken possession of the rented premises on 25.12.2011 by putting his lock does not merit acceptance. This Court notices from report of the Sale Amin dated 07.09.2015 that the petitioner objected handing over possession of the suit shop to the respondent landlord by breaking upon the lock which, as per the petitioner, was allegedly put by the landlord. Objection by the petitioner/tenant in handing over possession by breaking the lock is beyond comprehension if this lock was put by landlord himself. I find no perversity or illegality in the order impugned herein warranting interference of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.