JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may by allowing this writ petition be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) quash the impugned judgment and certificate dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure-8) passed by the Learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Rent Appeal No. 61/2019 (NCV No. 61/2019) (ii) the judgment and certificate dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in original application no. 38/2012 (Old No. 51/2005) be restored back throughout; and (iii) the original eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 may be dismissed with costs throughout; and (iv) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit necessary in the fact and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioners; and (v) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, the respondents filed an original rent petition before the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan [registered as Petition No.38/2012 (old No.51/05) NCV No.1575/2014] under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of petitioners from the House No.9/3/6, near Vyapariyon Ki Maszid, (originally belonging to one Rahim Bux) being let-out to Smt. Bashiran in the year 1979, and later on to the petitioners [Smt. Zarina (niece) and her husband who came to live with her in the said house), on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-by the father of the respondents during his lifetime. 2.1. After death of the respondents’ father, the petitioners paid rent till October 2002, however, no rent was paid thereafter for 4 months; legal notice was served with regard to the same to petitioner no.1, but it was refuted through a detailed reply by the petitioners by claiming possession of the suit property as its owner. 2.2. Thereafter, the learned Rent Tribunal after considering the evidence and material produced on record by the parties, held, vide judgment and certificate dated 13.08.2019, that there existed no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondents, and hence, rejected the eviction petition filed by the respondents. 2.2. Thereafter, the learned Rent Tribunal after considering the evidence and material produced on record by the parties, held, vide judgment and certificate dated 13.08.2019, that there existed no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondents, and hence, rejected the eviction petition filed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 19 (6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan (registered as Rent Appeal No.61/2019 NCV No.61/2019) and the same was allowed vide the impugned judgment and certificate dated 28.06.2022, while quashing and setting aside the aforementioned judgment and certificate passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Surendra Thanvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondents. It was further submitted that the respondents had been unable to prove the existence of any rent agreement between the parties nor were they able to showcase any receipt towards payment of rent. In furtherance, it was submitted that even the learned Rent Tribunal after a careful consideration held vide judgment and certificate dated 13.08.2019 that there exists no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. 3.1. It was also submitted that the petitioners had been living in the suit property for past 24 years; not only that, the petitioner no. 2 was a resident of the suit property since her birth itself, and thus, they were owners of the suit property by adverse possession. 3.2. It was further submitted that the suit property had been purchased by Rahim Bux but as his sister Shahida became widow at an early age, the property was given to her for her survival; she had two sons – Barkat Ali (father of petitioner no.2) and Madad Ali; Smt. Bashiran was the wife of Madad Ali and she wrote a Will for the suit property in the name of petitioner no.2. Thus, the petitioners were the owners of the suit property and had no need to pay any rent for residing there. 3.3. Thus, the petitioners were the owners of the suit property and had no need to pay any rent for residing there. 3.3. In furtherance, it was submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal had erred in its decision as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to determine rights and liabilities of the landlord and tenant, and since the suit was for eviction, the same could not be converted into a suit for determination of title of any party. 3.4. It was also submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has decided issues no. 2 to 4 in favour of the respondents. 3.5. In order to fortify such submissions, reliance was placed upon the following judgments: (a) Y. Nagaraj v. Jalajakshi and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 161 ; (b) Dwarka Nath Prasad Atal v. Ram Rati Devi (Civil Appeal No. 2253/1979, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 20.08.1979); and (c) Phanidhar Kalita v. Saraswati Devi & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2924-2925 of 2014, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 14.03.2014). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that Rahim Bux had by Will given the suit property to Mohammed Hussain, father of the respondents and Smt. Bashiran was a tenant; thereafter the property was let out to petitioner no.2 and her husband; thus, Smt. Bashiran could not have Willed the property to petitioner no.2 as she was not the owner of the property, and therefore, the Will produced by the petitioners is not a genuine document. 4.1. It was also submitted that neither Smt. Shahida nor her husband had any relation with the suit property and it was a false statement that the petitioners had been living there for the past 24 years. It was further submitted that there was no written rent agreement between the parties; however the same was orally done and respondent no.3 had after the death of his father received rent from Smt. Bashiran, and thus, the petitioners could not simply discard their position as a tenant of the respondents. 4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioners had claimed title of suit property on the basis of adverse possession; however as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr. 4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioners had claimed title of suit property on the basis of adverse possession; however as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 570 , the plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that the ownership of property vests in another, against whom the claimant asserts possession adverse to the title of such person, and thus, by claiming adverse possession, the petitioners were admitting the title of the respondents. 4.3. In furtherance, it was submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal held that the petitioners could not prove how they came to be the owners of the suit property and the mother of petitioner no.2 herself stated in the cross examination that the suit property belonged to the respondents. 4.4. It was also submitted that even if there was no issue of denial of title, and the title was denied in the written statement, even then the decree of eviction could be passed and since the petitioners have explicitly denied the title of the respondents as owners, therefore, the eviction order could be passed on this ground alone. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the father of respondents let out the suit property to one Smt. Bashiran and her husband Madad Ali during his lifetime; the respondents accepted petitioner no.2 (niece of Smt. Bashiran) and her husband as tenants who came to live in the suit property and have been living there after the death of Smt. Bashiran; however the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent in the year 2002 and when no rent was paid for 4 months, a legal notice was issued to the petitioners but the same was refuted, and the respondents’ title as owners itself was denied; eviction petition was filed by the respondents and though the learned Rent Tribunal gave findings against the respondents, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed the appeal vide the impugned judgment and certificate. 7. 7. This Court further observes that in accordance with the observations of the Appellate Rent Tribunal though the petitioners denied the existence of landlord-tenant relationship on the ground that they themselves were the owners of the suit property as they had received the property by Will of Smt. Bashiran; however the Will does not disclose as to how Smt. Bashiran herself came to be owner of the suit property, and thus, on the basis of the Will, it could not be concluded that the petitioners were owners of the suit property. In furtherance, the mother of the petitioner no. 2 herself gave the statement during cross-examination that the property belonged to the respondents. 8. This Court also observes that the certified copy of patta of the disputed property was also produced before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal as well as the exhibited the decision dated 12.08.1955 of the Custodian Department; both documents proved that the respondents were owners of the property; in addition, a perusal of the voters list and the ration card produced on record, did not show that the petitioners had been residing in the suit property for the past 24-25 years. 9. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners do not render any assistance to their case. 10. 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 grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.