Judgment 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and by an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction:- i. by an appropriate writ order or direction, an Order dated 25.07.2022 (Annex.6) and 21.10.2022 (Annex.8) may be declared declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, an objection petition (Annex.1) may kindly be allowed. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems appropriate and genuine may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners. (iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners". 2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner acquired the disputed premises in the year 1974 from one Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Shri Ramdeo as a partner of partnership firm. The petitioner paid the monthly rent of the disputed premises to Smt. Bhanwari Devi, and after her death, the monthly rent had been given to Shri Ashok kumar (husband of the respondent). 2.1 The respondent has however, filed an eviction petition under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001'), stating therein that one plot bearing no.6 at Paota 'C' Road, Jodhpur was let out on monthly rent to Late Shri Sawai Singh, and that, the said Late Shri Sawai Singh did not pay rent from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2015 (of total sum of Rs. 21,600/- for 12 Months). 2.2. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal issued notice of the said eviction petition to the said Late Shri Sawai Singh, but he failed to get himself represented before the learned Tribunal; whereafter, the learned Tribunal passed an ex parte eviction order on 20.10.2015 against Late Shri Sawai Singh. Subsequently, the execution petition has been filed, and the learned Executing Court vide order dated 16.09.2016 proceeded ex-parte against Late Shri Sawai Singh. 2.3. Subsequently, the execution petition has been filed, and the learned Executing Court vide order dated 16.09.2016 proceeded ex-parte against Late Shri Sawai Singh. 2.3. The petitioner immediately moved an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 21 Rules 97 & 98 and Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of CPC before the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur with a prayer that he may not be evicted from the disputed premises in question, as no opportunity of hearing, before passing of the eviction order, was afforded to him as a tenant. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2016 passed ad-interim order and restrained the respondent from evicting the petitioner. The petitioner moved another application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 for cross-examination of the respondent, but the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 2.3.1. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 2296/2019, but the same was withdrawn on 02.05.2019 with liberty to raise all objections before the appropriate forum. 2.4. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 21 Rules 97 & 98 and Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of CPC; against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellant Rent Tribunal (Appellant Authority), which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several documents have been produced before the learned courts below, showing the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties in regard to the disputed premises in question, and that, the petitioner has always been willing and ready to pay rent to the landlord. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has sent a legal notice as well as money order to the respondent but she intentionally did not receive the due rent and denied the tenant-landlord relationship between the parties herein; therefore, the action of the respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent impleaded only Late Shri Sawai Singh as party in eviction petition, despite knowing the fact that Late Shri Sawai Singh was not using the disputes premises. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent impleaded only Late Shri Sawai Singh as party in eviction petition, despite knowing the fact that Late Shri Sawai Singh was not using the disputes premises. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent, through her husband, has received rent from the petitioner upto the year 2014, and therefore, the respondent's denial in regard to tenant-landlord relationship is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Appellant Tribunal clearly suffer from non-appreciation of the material and the evidence on record. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that there existed no tenant-landlord relationship between the parties. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has paid the rent for the period from 01.05.2014 to 30.11.2016. 6.1. Learned counsel also submitted that though it is alleged by the petitioner that the rent was received by Ashok Kumar (Husband of the respondent), but the rent receipts for the period from 1974 to 2014 clear reveal that the name of Late Shri Sawai Singh was mentioned before the name of the petitioner, and therefore, Late Shri Sawai Singh was the authorized person. Thus, as per learned counsel, the eviction order, execution order as well as impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunals below are justified in law. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the learned Tribunal below had passed the ex-party eviction order on 20.10.2015 and the learned Executing Court passed the order against Late Shri Sawai Singh. This Court further observes that the petitioner acquired the disputed premises in question in the year 1974 from Smt. Bhawari Devi, and the said Bhawari Devi made Will in favour of the respondent in the year of 2003, and that, it is discernible from the record, being an admitted position that the petitioner paid the rent of the disputed premises till April 2014. The respondent did not know about the separation of petitioner and the said Late Shri Sawai Singh, as the petitioner did not give any information to the respondent about the said separation. The respondent did not know about the separation of petitioner and the said Late Shri Sawai Singh, as the petitioner did not give any information to the respondent about the said separation. 9. This Court also observes that Late Shri Sawai Singh and Bhopal Singh were real brothers, and that, the Firm, namely, Bhati Udhog is a partnership Firm, and not a single document has been produced by the petitioner to show that Late Shri Sawai Singh was not partner of the said Firm. This Court further observes that various cheques and payment receipts clearly reveal the name of Bhati Udhog together with Late Shri Sawai Singh. 10. The Court thus observes that the learned Tribunals below have passed well reasoned speaking orders after looking into the evidence and material on record, which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition does not merit acceptance and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.