Order 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, and the order dated 01.06.2016, passed by Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, for eviction of the premise-residential house, on the ground of, default in payment of rent. The application of the respondent was allowed by the Rent Eviction Tribunal, holding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and as such, the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the property-residential house within three months from the order and further the arrears of rent of Rs. 43,200/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, was also required to be paid by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the order dated 18.08.2015, and he preferred appeal before the Appellate Forum and his appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 01.06.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue of landlord and tenant relationship, has wrongly been decided by both the Courts below, as the petitioner was himself, the owner of the disputed property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation of the non-petitioner to be in possession since 1992, as the owner, was not proved and even no rent was ever paid by the petitioner to the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original allottee of the property was one Rajendra Kumar Jain and the petitioner had last will in his favour from the original allottee and as such, he acquired ownership of the disputed premise. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed dated 09.01.2006, claiming title in favour of the non-petitioner was a frivolous document and the same did not create any right in his favour against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:- 1. That the Courts below have committed serious error in deciding issue relating to relationship of the petitioner and the non-petitioner, as landlord and tenant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:- 1. That the Courts below have committed serious error in deciding issue relating to relationship of the petitioner and the non-petitioner, as landlord and tenant. The document relied by the Courts below i.e. exhibit 9 & 10 were not complete document to find out title in favour of the respondent, as the document in question-agreement dated 13.10.1992, executed by the original owner-allottee-Rajender Kumar Jain in favour of the one Anil Badwal, was not having any amount of consideration being made in the said agreement at page no.3 and there was also overwriting/cutting in the name. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another document-exhibit 10, relied by the Courts below was the will executed by Rajender Kumar Jain, in favour of Anil Badwal, where, there was a cutting and the said will was a frivolous document and could not have been relied upon. 2. The petitioner had proved his ownership on the basis of document in his favour i.e. will, agreement and power of attorney. 3. The Court below could not have been swayed only on the basis of sale deed in favour of the non-petitioner as seller of the property i.e. Anil Badwal, had no right to execute the sale deed. 4. The non-petitioner had sent a notice to the petitioner dated 06.12.2005, claiming rent and ownership of the property, however, the sale deed was executed on 09.01.2006, and in spite of such fact being proved that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, the non-petitioner has been declared owner of the property and eviction order has also been passed. 5. The Rent Tribunal in view of serious dispute of relationship between the petitioner and the non-petitioner of landlord and tenant, could not have decided the complex issue and the matter should have been referred to the Civil Court as the eviction proceedings, are summary in nature. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5678/2011, titled as Sanwar Lal Rai Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr., decided on 28.02.2013 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6411/2016, titled as Virendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 02.01.2018, by this Court and AIR 2021 (SC) 1741 titled as Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Ved Prakash Arya, decided on 05.03.2021. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr., decided on 28.02.2013 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6411/2016, titled as Virendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 02.01.2018, by this Court and AIR 2021 (SC) 1741 titled as Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Ved Prakash Arya, decided on 05.03.2021. Learned counsel on the strength of the said judgments submitted that if relationship of the landlord and tenant, is not established beyond reasonable time, then the Rent Tribunal cannot pass an order of eviction against the person. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Mr. O.P. Mishra submitted that both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant and default in payment of rent and as such, this Court will be slow to interfere in a writ of certiorari, where a question of fact has been examined by the Courts concurrently, after considering the evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the re-appreciation of evidence in writ jurisdiction may not be done and the evidence i.e. oral as well as the documentary evidence led by both the parties, has been considered and discussed in detail by the Courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below has considered the sale deed in favour of the respondent, as he purchased the property by registered instrument and the non-petitioner had submitted all original documents pertaining to allotment of plot including allotment letter and possession letter, issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner himself had executed a document-exhibit 12, wherein he stated to vacate the suit premise and was to hand over the same to the landlord. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once the registered sale deed was in favour of the non-petitioner, then only on the basis of power of attorney, agreement and will, the petitioner could not have been treated as owner of the property and a false plea taken by the petitioner, was rightly rejected by the Court below. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once the registered sale deed was in favour of the non-petitioner, then only on the basis of power of attorney, agreement and will, the petitioner could not have been treated as owner of the property and a false plea taken by the petitioner, was rightly rejected by the Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that suit property bearing house No.12/123, Mansarower, Jaipur, was allotted to the original allottee and he had taken possession on 11.03.1987 and Rajender Kumar Jain, executed an agreement to sell and will in favour of one Anil Badwal on 13.10.1992 and he also executed the power of attorney in favour of the one Pyarelal, which was registered. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the original allottee, had expired on 08.06.1995, then the non-petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with Anil Badwal and he executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent, which was duly registered and the power of attorney holder-Pyarlal, had remained witness in the sale deed and as such, all documents were handed over to the non-petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on judgments passed by the Apex Court in (2008) 4 SCC 451 -S.K. Maniraju Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 1 SCC 330 -Usha Vs. Ravindra and (2010) 5 SCC 510-Mohd Shahnawaz Vs. First Addl District Judge. 9. Learned counsel on the strength of said judgments, submitted that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not be used to set aside the concurrent finds and facts. 8. I have heard the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The moot question before this Court is to consider the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the non-petitioner. 10. This Court is also required to consider as whether findings recorded by the Court below on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant, are rightly recorded or not. 11. This Court finds that the Rent Eviction Tribunal while framing issue No.3 in relation to relationship of landlord and tenant, has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the entire evidence, it came to conclusion that the relationship of the petitioner with the non-petitioner was of tenant and landlord. 12. 11. This Court finds that the Rent Eviction Tribunal while framing issue No.3 in relation to relationship of landlord and tenant, has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the entire evidence, it came to conclusion that the relationship of the petitioner with the non-petitioner was of tenant and landlord. 12. The Rent Eviction Tribunal has found that the registered sale deed was executed in favour of the non-petitioner and further the petitioner had only agreement, will and power of attorney in his favour. 13. The Court below in view of registered document in favour of the non-petitioner has rightly come to conclusion that for establishing relationship of landlord and tenant, registered document, established such relationship. 14. This Court further finds that the Rent Tribunal has taken into account document executed by the petitioner himself, wherein, he stated that he vacated the suit premise and handed over to the landlord and further signatures of the petitioner were admitted by his own witness P.W. 4. 15. The Court below further found that the petitioner himself had admitted signature of the original allottee Rajender Kumar Jain, on documents produced as exhibit 9 & 10 and further the witness produced by the petitioner-Shankar Lal Sharma, also admitted in respect of alleged agreement that no consideration was ever paid in his presence. 16. This Court finds that the Court below has also recorded that there was a stipulation in the registered sale deed in favour of the non-petitioner, whereby, the petitioner was shown to be tenant in the suit premise. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue of landlord and tenant ought not to have been decided by the Rent Eviction Tribunal as it conducts summary proceedings, suffice it to say by this Court, that in eviction matter, if there is a denial of relationship by a tenant and the tenant wants to absolve himself to pay rent on said account, the Rent Eviction Tribunal is required to consider the relationship after taking into account the relevant evidence produced before it. 18. There is a person who has got a sale deed in his favour and a person who does not have any title in the property or proper execution of legal document in his favour, later cannot be permitted to dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. 19. 18. There is a person who has got a sale deed in his favour and a person who does not have any title in the property or proper execution of legal document in his favour, later cannot be permitted to dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. 19. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had last will in his favour and as such, the earlier will executed in favour of any other person, will have no sanctity in eye of law, suffice it to say by this Court, that if registered sale deed has been executed, the relevance of last will or previous will, will not be a relevant consideration for deciding the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant for considering the issue of eviction before the Rent Tribunal. 20. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document which was produced by the non-petitioner was a forged document as there was cutting/overwriting at certain place and further there was no detail with the regard to consideration paid by the non-petitioner to the original allottee, suffice it to say by this Court, that the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence led by both the parties, have been examined in detail and then findings have been recorded by the Courts below and as such, this Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence, while exercising the writ jurisdiction. 21. This Court finds substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that the relationship of landlord and tenant is a question of fact which has been examined by both the Courts below and as such, re-appreciation of evidence will not be permitted by this Court, exercising the writ jurisdiction. 22. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sanwar Lal Rai Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. (supra), this Court finds that the said judgment is of little assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sanwar Lal Rai Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. (supra), this Court finds that the said judgment is of little assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court in that case, recorded the fact that the tenant had acquired possession of the flat on the strength of agreement to sell and fact of payment to the owner was supported by evidence and further the remaining amount was to be paid by the tenant by way of demand draft as sale consideration and considering these facts of the case, this Court came to conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant, was established as due payment was made to the person by the tenant. 23. This Court finds that in the present case, the non-petitioner had a registered sale deed in his favour and further the petitioner has not been able to prove from any cogent evidence, his right to retain the property as landlord. 24. The reliance placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Ved Prakash Arya (supra), the Apex Court found that the oral agreement of the tenancy can also be taken into account and conduct of parties before and after creation of relationship, is relevant for finding out their intention. This Court finds that the said judgment was passed by the Apex Court after regular second appeal was decided by the High Court and as such, the said judgment is of no assistance. 25. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment passed by this Court in Virendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), this Court finds that the issue before this Court was with respect to the title of the land, as whether, it was the Jaipur Development Authority or the Forest Department and as such, this Court found that ownership of property, cannot be determined in the eviction proceedings. 26. This Court accordingly, finds that no error has been committed by the Courts below and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.