ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. This writ petition has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 27/1/2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-tenant and affirming the order dated 9/5/2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan who disposed of the application filed by the respondent-landlord under section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act of 2001') in the following manner: ^^¼1½ fd izR;FkhZ dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ftldk fooj.k vthZ dh en la[;k 3 esa fn;k x;k gS] dk 'kkafriwoZd o [kkyh dCtk lgh gkyr esa vkt fnukad ls N% ekg ds vanj&vanj vthZnkj dks lqiqnZ djsaA ¼2½ fd vthZnkj izR;FkhZ ls cdk;k fdjk;k isVs 8]34]000@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ¼3½ fd ;kfpdk is'k gksus ls dCtk izkfIr rd dh vof/k ds fy;s ifjlj ds mi;ksx miHkksx ds var%dkyhu ykHk ds :i esa vthZnkj] izR;fFkZ;k ls dqy 40]000@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls jkf'k izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gksxk o vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 ¼3½ ds vuqlkj fofgr le;kof/k esa dCtk ugha fn;k tkrk gS rks var% dkyhu ykHk dh jkf'k mDr izko/kku vuqlkj rhu xq.kk dh nj ls ns; gksxhA ¼4½ fd vthZ ds fopkj.k ds nkSjku fdjk;s isVs ;fn dksbZ jkf'k izR;fFkZ;k }kjk vthZnkj dks vnk dh x;h gS rks og jkf'k lek;kstu ;ksX; gSA ¼5½ [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA ¼6½ vuqlwph ^^x** dk izek.k&i= cuk;k tkosA ¼7½ bl vkns'k dh ,d izfr izR;fFkZ;k dks vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk&17 ds rgr fu%'kqYd nh tkos rFkk ml ij uksV vafdr fd;k tkos fd,slh izfr mls fu%'kqYd iznku dh xbZ gSA i{kdkjku vihy ds iz;kstu ls ekuuh; vihyh; fdjk;k vf/kdj.k t;iqj egkuxj] t;iqj esa fnukad 22-07-2019 dks mifLFkr gksA** 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below have committed illegality in entertaining and trying the eviction petition filed by the landord under the Act of 2001 in clear contravention of the provisions of Chapter-II and III of the Act of 2001. Counsel submits that the applicant should have filed a civil suit as the application under the Rent Control Act is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the documents exhibited are to be proved under the Evidence Act but the applicant has not proved any document. Counsel submits that the applicant should have filed a civil suit as the application under the Rent Control Act is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the documents exhibited are to be proved under the Evidence Act but the applicant has not proved any document. Section 3 of the Act of 2001 provides that Chapter II and III not to apply certain premises and tenancies including the premises belonging to or let out by the Central Government or the State Government. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering various judgments, has observed that the respondent-company is not covered under sub section 5 of Section 3 of the Act of 2001. Petitioner has failed to show that premises in question of this litigation belongs to or let out by any body/corporate constituted by a Central Act or a Rajasthan Act. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing Exs. 1 to 11 which have not been proved in evidence by the applicants. In this regard, I find that the petitioner has not made any submission before the Appellate Tribunal. 5. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as also in the order passed the Rent Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.s