JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “1. The impugned order dated 18.5.2014 (Annex.13) passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as the impugned judgment dated 26.5.2017 (Annex.15) passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal whereby issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-petitioner may very kindly be quashed and set aside; 2. Accordingly, petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the Rent Tribunal may very kindly be dismissed; and 3. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble High Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a petition (Annex.1) under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) for eviction of the petitioners-defendants from the shop on the ground of bonafide necessity and default in payment of rent. It was stated that the rent of the shop in question is Rs.6250/-became due for the period April 2006 to 31 January, 2007, which was neither tendered by the petitioners-defendants nor was paid and, therefore, a Notice dated 26.02.2007 was sent to the petitioners-defendants mentioning the bank account details of State Bank of India, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner bearing A/c No.900979050, which was received by the petitioners-defendants on 27.02.2007. 3. The petitioners-defendants filed reply (Annex.2) to the said petition stating therein that the rent of the shop is Rs.200/-per month and after revision of the rent the petitioners were depositing the rent in the bank A/c No.996, SBBJ, Bank, Jai Narain Vyas colony. However, with malafide intention, the respondents-plaintiffs closed the said account and did not inform about the new bank account and the petitioners-defendants sent a Notice dated 28.06.2006 but the details of the bank account were not provided. It was also stated that no Notice dated 26.02.2007 was received by the petitioners-defendants. 4. During the pendency of the above-said petition, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2012 (Annex.3). The petitioners-defendants filed amended reply to the petition (Annex. 4). 5. It was also stated that no Notice dated 26.02.2007 was received by the petitioners-defendants. 4. During the pendency of the above-said petition, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2012 (Annex.3). The petitioners-defendants filed amended reply to the petition (Annex. 4). 5. On 19.03.2008, the learned Rent Tribunal framed four issues (Annex.5A), which reads as under:- ^^1- fd D;k vizkFkhZ us oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k 625@& : izfr ekg dh nj ls vizsy 2006 ls tuojh 2007 rd dk izkFkhZ }kjk Hksts x, uksfVl ds ckn ,d ekg esa vnk ugha djds O;frdze fd;k gS\ 2- fd D;k izkFkhZ dks vius iksrs yhyk/kj gsrq oknxzLr ifjlj dh ;qfDr;qDr o ln~Hkkfod vko';drk gS\ 3- fd D;k vizkFkhZ dks vius dkjksckj gsrq vU;= i;kZIr ifjlj miyC/k gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\** 6. The Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 18.05.2013 (Annex.13) decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and issue Nos.2 and 3 were decided against the respondents-plaintiffs and allowed the petition filed by the respondents-plaintiffs who were held entitled to get vacant possession of the shop in question and were also entitled to get rent as per the rent-review order dated 05.05.2005. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2013 (Annex.13), the petitioner-defendants preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.05.2017 (Annex.15) while upholding the findings given on issue No.1. 8. Hence, being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2013 (Annex.13) passed by the Rent Tribunal and the judgment dated 26.05.2017 (Annex.15), passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners-defendants have preferred the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions :- (a) That the learned Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant that the Notice dated 26.02.2007 sent by the respondents-plaintiffs was actually not received by the petitioners-defendants and the signature alleged to be made on the A/D was forged. The petitioners-defendants also moved the application for obtaining report from the hand-writing expert but the same was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal in a cursory manner and thus, has committed illegality while deciding issue No.1. The learned Rent Appellate Tribunal also, while deciding the appeal has not considered this aspect of the matter. The petitioners-defendants also moved the application for obtaining report from the hand-writing expert but the same was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal in a cursory manner and thus, has committed illegality while deciding issue No.1. The learned Rent Appellate Tribunal also, while deciding the appeal has not considered this aspect of the matter. (b) That the petitioners-defendants were depositing the rent in the bank account provided by the respondents-plaintiffs but all of a sudden, the said account was closed and no details of bank account was provided by them. The petitioners-defendants also sent a Notice in this regard, even then the required details were not provided. The learned Rent Tribunal and the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, without considering all these aspects of the matters, decided the issue No.1 against the petitioners-defendants and passed the order of eviction and thus, has committed serious illegality and irregularity. (c) That the petitioners-defendants moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal for taking on record the report of the hand-writing expert obtained by them but the said application was dismissed erroneously and thus, the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has committed grave error in dismissing the appeal. (d) That the learned Rent Tribunal and the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal both have committed grave error of facts and law in not considering the fact that in the plaint the respondents-plaintiffs mentioned the bank account details of his Account as No.12183 whereas in para No.10(2) of the plaint, the bank details of A/c No.9009749050 of State Bank of India, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner and thus, the respondents-plaintiffs themselves were not interested in receiving the rent and the petitioners-defendants were not having knowledge of the bank account. (e) That the learned Rent Tribunal, merely placing reliance upon the Notice dated 26.02.2007, decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs, which has resulted in failure of justice. The learned Rent Appellate Tribunal also did not consider this aspect of the matter in true perspective and thus, committed grave error while deciding the appeal. (e) That the learned Rent Tribunal, merely placing reliance upon the Notice dated 26.02.2007, decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs, which has resulted in failure of justice. The learned Rent Appellate Tribunal also did not consider this aspect of the matter in true perspective and thus, committed grave error while deciding the appeal. (f) That issue Nos.2 and 3 regarding bonafide need in have been decided in favour of the petitioners-defendants then there was no need of deciding issue No.1 against them as it was an admitted position that soon after receipt of Notice of the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, the petitioners-defendants deposited Rs.10,000/-and thus, it cannot be said that there was any default of payment of rent. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted as under :- (a) That the respondents-plaintiffs served a Notice under Section 9A of the Act of 2001, which provides that the defaulted rent should be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Notice. In the case in hand, the Notice was served upon 27.02.2007 and the rent was required to be deposited up to 27.03.2007 but admittedly, the petitioners-defendants have failed to do so and thus, the learned Rent Tribunal as well as the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal have rightly decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and have rightly passed the order of eviction. (b) That the application filed by the petitioners-defendants for obtaining report of the hand-writing expert was rightly dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal as the same was filed at the stage of final hearing. The petitioners-defendants were having knowledge of signatures on A/D and if there was any doubt about the said signature, then this objection could have been raised at an early stage and thus, now, at this stage, the petitioners-defendants cannot raise this issue. Further, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the report of an expert is required if the Court cannot compare the same. In the case in hand, the A/D, on which the signature was there and there were ample documents on which the signature of Kanhaiyalal was there, then there was no requirement of obtaining report of hand-writing expert . Further, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the report of an expert is required if the Court cannot compare the same. In the case in hand, the A/D, on which the signature was there and there were ample documents on which the signature of Kanhaiyalal was there, then there was no requirement of obtaining report of hand-writing expert . (c) The learned Rent Appellate Tribunal also rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking on record the report of hand-writing expert obtained by the petitioners-defendants as this fact was in the knowledge of the petitioners-defendants from beginning but no evidence was produced in this respect before the learned Rent Tribunal and since the documents were not to be sent for examination of the hand-writing expert, then there cannot be any question for taking on record of the report of the hand-writing expert. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. This Court observes that the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 26.5.2017 (Annex.15) while dealing with the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive Notice (Exhibit-1) has held that upon perusal of record, it is evident that PW-1 Dhanraj in his statement has stated that Notice (Exhibit-1) was duly served upon the petitioner by way of registered-post, for which postal-receipt (Exhibit-2) and receipt receiving the same (Exhibit-3) had been placed on record. Further the petitioner’s contention that the signatures on the said Notice were forged signatures is also not sustainable as the Notice was received by one Kanhaiya Lal, who is the uncle of the petitioner. 13. This Court further observes that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have given a specific finding that the petitioner has failed to show that the address mentioned in Notice (Exhibit-1), postal-receipt (Exhibit-2) and registered-A/D (Exhibit3) is not of the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner has utterly failed to show that the said Notice (Exhibit-1) was not received by the petitioner. 14. 14. This Court also observes that despite service of Notice (Exhibit-1), the petitioner did not deposit rent of Rs.625/-on monthly basis for the period from April, 2006 to January, 2007 within a period of one month and the said rent was deposited after a period of more than four months, thus, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the petitioner had duly paid rent to the tune of Rs.625/-on monthly basis for the period from April, 2006 to January, 2007 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such Notice (Exhibit-1). 15. This Court further observes that this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot convert into a Court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Since the concurrent findings of fact and law as arrived by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal are based on the material and evidence available on record, thus, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order dated 18.5.2013 (Annex.13) passed by Rent Tribunal and the order dated 26.5.2017 (Annex.15) passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.