JUDGMENT : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ, order or direction - a. That the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2022 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Pali (Raj.) in Rent Appeal no.4/2013 and the judgment dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Pali (Raj.) in Rent Control Case no.18/2008 may kindly be declared illegal and set aside with all consequential benefits. b. That in the alternative it is also prayed that, if during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner is dispossessed from the presmises in question, then his possession may kindly be restored back with all consequential benefits. c. That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that one Sh. Kewal Chand (since deceased, now represented through LR - respondent no.1/1 herein) filed an application under Sections 6, 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 2001'), registered as Rent Control Case No.18/2008, before the learned Rent Tribunal, Pali against the petitioner, stating therein that he let out the premises in question to the petitioner on rent @ Rs. 400/- per month w.e.f. 26.04.1994, and the rent deed was executed on 24.03.1994. 2.1. Thereafter, the original applicant (landlord) sent a registered notice through his Advocate on 12.05.2008 and terminated the landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner, and also asked the petitioner to deposit the due rent of three years to be paid by the petitioner; however, during the pendency of the eviction application, the original landlord - Kewal Chand expired, and accordingly, his legal representative (respondent no.1/1 herein) was taken on record on 30.01.2021. 2.2. The learned Rent Tribunal framed the issues and proceeded with the trial; after hearing of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal below vide the impugned order dated 08.01.2013, allowed the said application and directed to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and pay the due rent. 2.3. 2.2. The learned Rent Tribunal framed the issues and proceeded with the trial; after hearing of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal below vide the impugned order dated 08.01.2013, allowed the said application and directed to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and pay the due rent. 2.3. The petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001 (registered as Rent Appeal No. 04/2023) against the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2013, before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali. The learned Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 dismissed the said appeal, while upholding the order dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. Thus, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner himself is the owner of the premises in question, as he has a patta in respect of the property in question issued by the competent authority. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the orders passed by the learned Tribunals below are not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta clearly show that the petitioner was in possession of the premises in question since 1990, and the Municipal Council, Pali issued the requisite patta to the petitioner on 03.12.2012, Therefore, as per learned counsel, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal below cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the premises, as mentioned in the rent deed and referred in the eviction application, is situated in khasra no.841, whereas the premises for which the patta is situated in Khasra no. 842, and therefore, the impugned orders passed by learned tribunals below are not sustained in eye of law. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the rent agreement, duly signed, was executed between the petitioner and the deceased (original landlord) was drawn on the stamp paper purchased by the petitioner (tenant), and for the same, the petitioner has also written a (Kirayachitthi). Therefore, as per learned counsel, there is a clear landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. 4.1. Therefore, as per learned counsel, there is a clear landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the original landlord also sent the legal notice on 13.08.2008 through his Advocate to the petitioner for due rent of the premises in question, but the petitioner did not pay any rent. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal as well as learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, duly considering the issues raised, passed the details orders, in favour of the respondents, which are justified in law. 4.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Rampal s/o Bhanwarlal v. Manmal s/o Chandmal & Ors., 2015(3) RLW 2567 (Raj.). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the original landlord (since deceased) has filed an eviction application against the petitioner-tenant before the learned Rent Tribunal and the same allowed on 08.01.2013, with a direction to the petitioner to evict the premises in question and also pay due rent to the original landlord. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2022, while upholding the order dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. 7. This Court further observes that the learned Rent Tribunal observed in its eviction order that the rent agreement, duly signed was executed between the original landlord, on a stamp which was purchased by the petitioner himself, and the necessary Kiraya Chitthi was also there. 8. This Court also observes that though the petitioner averred that the patta in question was issued by the competent authority, but he did not produce the same in evidence at the relevant time; thus, in the present proceedings, the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties cannot be denied. 9. This Court further observes that the respondent has no alternative accommodation, and thus, needs the premises in question for his bonafide necessity. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Tribunals below, being well reasoned speaking orders, are justified in law. 10. 9. This Court further observes that the respondent has no alternative accommodation, and thus, needs the premises in question for his bonafide necessity. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Tribunals below, being well reasoned speaking orders, are justified in law. 10. This Court also observes that the learned Tribunals observed that the petitioner has not rendered any reliable evidence in support of the patta in question and his statement was also not reliable; and thus, the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is clearly established in the present case, amongst others, on the strength of the rent agreement and the Kiraya Chitthi. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to warrant any interference in the two concurrent orders passed by the learned Tribunals below. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.