JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners/tenant/non-applicant (for brevity, 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Alwar (for brevity, 'the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal') in Civil Appeal (Rent) No.15/2017 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar (for brevity, 'the learned Rent Tribunal') allowing the Original Application No.11/2008 filed by the respondents/landlords/applicants (for brevity, 'the applicants') under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2001'), has been affirmed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the applicants filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the petitioners and proforma-respondent No.3 seeking their eviction from the subject premises comprising of a Garage let out on 05.11.1960 to them on the grounds of non-user and default in payment of rent. 3. The petitioners in their reply admitting that the subject Garage was taken on rent from Moorti Mandir Shri Bihari Ji Maharaj, denied that it was either a public trust or, S/Shri Ram Das & Mayaram were its Chairperson and Secretary respectively. Non-user and default in payment of rent were denied. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal framed four issues including relief. After recording evidence of the applicants as no evidence was led by the petitioners, the learned Rent Tribunal allowed the application vide its judgment dated 09.12.2016 deciding Issues No.1 & 2 in favour of the applicants and a recovery certificate was issued. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 22.11.2021. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2021, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the provisions of Section 3(viii) of the Act of 2001, would submit that the subject property being the trust property, the rent application filed by the applicants under Chapter-III of the Act of 2001 was not maintainable. Inviting attention of this Court towards the order of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 19.10.2016 wherein, a direction was issued to record the statement of Shri Satyendra Singh, their witness through the Court Commissioner on 04.11.2016, learned counsel submitted that without examining the witness, learned Rent Tribunal proceeded with the trial resulting into prejudice to them. Inviting attention of this Court towards the order of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 19.10.2016 wherein, a direction was issued to record the statement of Shri Satyendra Singh, their witness through the Court Commissioner on 04.11.2016, learned counsel submitted that without examining the witness, learned Rent Tribunal proceeded with the trial resulting into prejudice to them. He submitted that the applicants' witness himself has admitted during his cross-examination that he had no authority to file the application on behalf of the trust. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment dated 22.11.2021 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the applicants under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 be dismissed. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Under Section 3 (viii) of the Act of 2001, the premises belonging only to such religious, charitable or educational trust or Class of such trusts are exempted from the application of Chapters-II & III of the Act of 2001 which are specified by the State Government vide notification in the official gazette. Indisputably, in the present case, the petitioners have neither produced any such notification issued by the State Government exempting the subject property from the applicability of the Chapters-II & III of the Act of 2001 nor, it was there defence either before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal or the learned Rent Tribunal. Even during the course of arguments before this Court, despite asking, the learned counsel expressed his inability to produce any such notification. Therefore, his contention cannot be countenanced. 8. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel that without examination of their witness-Satyendra Singh in terms of order dated 19.10.2016, the learned Rent Tribunal erred in proceeding with the matter, is concerned, it does not borne out from the judgment of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 09.12.2016 that any such objection was raised by them therein; rather, the order of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 16.11.2016 reveals that closing their evidence in the presence of their learned counsel, the case was fixed for final arguments without any objection by the petitioners as to non-compliance of the order dated 19.10.2016. However, while dealing with this objection raised by the petitioners before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, it has been held that they have failed to furnish any explanation as to why despite having an opportunity to get their witness examined through Court Commissioner, it was not done so. In these circumstances, a possibility cannot be ruled out that petitioners' witness could not be examined by the Court Commissioner in terms of order of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 16.11.2016 for the reasons attributable to the petitioners themselves. It has also been held by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that despite availing a number of opportunities, the petitioners did not lead any evidence. In view thereof, submission of the learned counsel deserves to be rejected. 9. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the applicants' witness himself has admitted during his crossexamination that he did not have any authority to file the application on behalf of the trust, is wholly misconceived and misplaced. Neither any material has been placed on record by the petitioners to substantiate the aforesaid submission despite it being a writ of certiorari nor, the judgment impugned reveals any such objection taken by them either before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal or the learned Rent Tribunal. Rather, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that Shri Ramdas was authorised to file the application. 10. There are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners which have not been shown to be suffering from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or patent jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.