JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs :- (i) The impugned order dated 06.08.2018 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The application under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 filed the respondent no.2 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 30.11.2007 respondent no.2/landlord filed an application under Section 9(A) (J) & (L) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2001’) before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara stating inter alia that his commercial property i.e. Godown No. 33 was on rent @ Rs.2420/-per month with the petitioner/tenant, of which, respondent no.2/landlord is in bonafide need whereas the petitioner/tenant is not in need of the godown as he has put lock on the godown. For the last 15 months, the petitioner is neither taking any use of the rented property nor is paying rent. The rent of 30 months is due against the petitioner/tenant and despite giving notice neither the petitioner is paying rent nor is handing over vacant possession of the godown. Thus, the petitioner, by not paying the rent since March 2002, has committed default in payment of rent. He, thus, prayed for vacating the godown from petitioner and for handing over the same to respondent no. 2. 3. The petitioner in his reply to the application stated that the rent of disputed premises was not Rs.2420/-per month but was Rs.2000/-per month. The respondent no. 2 is not having bonafide need of the disputed godown whereas the petitioner is having reasonable and bonafide necessity of the godown in-question. He has not put any lock on godown whereas he is using the godown continuously. No rent is due against him. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay rent but the respondent no. 2 is not ready to accept the same. The petitioner has not received any kind of notice from respondent no. 2 nor he is having any knowledge of any such notice. On vacating the disputed godown the petitioner would become unemployed and his family will have to face financial difficulties/hardship and they have no other source of livelihood. 2 is not ready to accept the same. The petitioner has not received any kind of notice from respondent no. 2 nor he is having any knowledge of any such notice. On vacating the disputed godown the petitioner would become unemployed and his family will have to face financial difficulties/hardship and they have no other source of livelihood. The petitioner is not having any other godown except the disputed godown. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner has taken the disputed premises on lease on 01.05.1990 by executing an agreement, according to which, the respondent no.2 has to deposit Rs.1 lac before vacating the godown and has to pay to the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent no.2 without paying Rs. 1 lac to petitioner, has no right to get the godown vacated. The respondent no. 2 concealing the said fact has filed application and, has not come before learned Tribunal with clean hands. The petitioner has paid rent to respondent no. 2 upto December 2003. The petitioner was ready to pay the rent to the respondent no. 2 but respondent no. 2 has not accepted the rent and now the respondent no. 2 cannot say that the petitioner has defaulted in paying the rent and now he is not entitled to receive the rent. The respondent no. 2 has not made it clear in his application about the requirement of the disputed premises whereas the respondent no.2 is having several vacant godowns and could have utilized the same upon any requirement. He wants to get vacated the disputed godown, as earlier also he has sold several godowns and shops and with a view to sell, he wants to evict the petitioner whereas the petitioner is ready to purchase the said godown. The petitioner is using the godown for the business of scrap and ultimately the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The petitioner is using the godown for the business of scrap and ultimately the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara framed the following issues :- ^^¼1½ vk;k fookfnr ifjlj izR;FkhZ ds ikl fdrus :Œ izfrekg fdjk;s ij gS\ vkSj izR;FkhZ dh vksj djr dk fdruk fdjk;k ckdh gS\ ¼2½ vk;k izR;FkhZ us vthZnkj dks fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pwd dh gS ¼3½ vk;k vthZnkj dks fookfnr ifjlj dh lökfod vko';drk gS\ ¼4½ vk;k fookfnr ifjlj fiNys 15 ekg ls izR;FkhZ ds fdlh mi;ksx esa ugha vk jgk gS\ ¼5½ vk;k vtkZ fof/kd O;fDr gSfl;r ls is'k ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj bl dkj.k vthZ pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ ¼6½ v;; vchZnkj dh ;g vthZ jkt fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kŒ dh /kkjk 22 esa of.kZr :i esa ugha gksus ls bldk vthZ ij D;k izHkko gS\ ¼7½ vk;k ds- d- eku flag dks vthZ ,d lR;kiu djus ,oa vthZ izLrqr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS\^^ 5. The learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara after hearing the arguments of both the sides vide its order dated 21.05.2012 (Annex.3) allowed the application under Section 9(A)(J) & (L) of the Act of 2001 filed by the respondent no.2 to the effect that the respondent no.2 is entitled to recover amount of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.74,360/- from the petitioner and further that the respondent no.2 shall also be entitled to get the possession of the vacant premises w.e.f. 21.11.2012. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 21.05.2012 (Annex.3) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara. 7. The learned appellate court vide its judgment dated 03.09.2015 (Annex.4) partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 21.5.2012 was quashed and set aside to the extent of decision given in respect of issue no.4 for vacating the disputed premises and handing over the possession to the respondent No.2 and the application submitted by the respondent No.2 regarding eviction from the premises was dismissed. However, the learned appellate court directed that as far as issue no.1 is concerned, the order of learned Rent Tribunal is upheld. 8. However, the learned appellate court directed that as far as issue no.1 is concerned, the order of learned Rent Tribunal is upheld. 8. The respondent no.2, against the judgment dated 03.09.2015 (Annex.4) passed by learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara, preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B.C.W.P. No.12537/2015, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2015 (Annex.5). 9. The respondent no.2 thereafter filed application under Section 20 of the Act of 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara (Annex.6) for execution of the order dated 03.09.2015 (Annex.4). 10. The petitioner filed reply to the application aforesaid and submitted that the petitioner recently came to know that the respondent No.2 has sold the property in question on 27.11.2006 and the respondent No.2, while concealing this material fact, has misled the Rent Tribunal and has obtained the order of eviction. 11. The learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara vide its order dated 06.08.2018 (Annex.7) allowed the application filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 20 of the Act of 2001 and found the respondent No.2 entitled to receive the arrears of rent. 12. The petitioner, thus, being aggrieved of the order dated 06.08.2018 (Annex.7) prefers this writ petition. 13. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in passing the impugned order dated 06.8.2018 (Annex.7) as the same is beyond the order dated 21.05.2012 (Annex.3) by which the application of the respondent No.2, filed under Section 9(A)(J) & (L) of the Act of 2001 was allowed. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not ordered any mesne profit and compensation vide order dated 21.5.2012 (Annex.3) and thus, the learned Tribunal has committed error in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 20 of the Act of 2001. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the respondent No.2/landlord, during the pendency of the application under Section 9(A)(J) & (L) of the Act of 2001, has sold out the property in question on 27.11.2006 and, thus, the respondent No.2 had no right over the property in question as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent No.2, in his application filed under Section 20 of the Act of 2001, is seeking four times the amount as prayed for in the application under Section 9(A)(J) and (L) of the Act of 2001. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, vide order dated 21.05.2012, directed eviction of the petitioner from the commercial premises owned by the respondent No.2-landlord on the ground of default of payment of rent, non-user of the premises and reasonable and bonafide necessity. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has upheld the findings of the learned Rent Tribunal regarding issue No.1 framed regarding arrears of rent and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner. Thus, the finding regarding issue No.1 has attained finality. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also submits that the order dated 06.08.2018 (Annex.7) has been rightly passed by the learned Tribunal holding the respondent No.2 entitled to recover the rent of the premises in dispute. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. The learned court below after hearing the parties has held that the petitioner was neither able to show that he has already paid the rent due to the respondent nor that he is not in possession of the disputed premises. Further, the learned court below also observed that the sale-deed has not been taken on record by the Appellate Tribunal and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was dismissed. The learned court below, while examining the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent No.2 and petitioner has said that the relationship cannot be said to come to an end just because the ownership of the disputed premises has been transferred particularly when the petitioner has nowhere stated that some other person or the buyer has demanded the rent from the petitioner. 21. This Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is unable to prove that the rented premises in dispute had been sole to third party by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.2 is entitled to recover the amount of arrears due to him. 21. This Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is unable to prove that the rented premises in dispute had been sole to third party by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.2 is entitled to recover the amount of arrears due to him. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the judgment dated 03.09.2015, passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the same has attained finality and thus, the petitioner is bound by it. 22. This Court thus, finds that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order dated 06.08.2018, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and that the learned court below, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 06.8.2018, has rightly held that the respondent no.2 is entitled to recover the rent amount due from the petitioner for the disputed premises. 23. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 24. The stay application so also any other application pending, if any, also stand disposed of.