ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the validity of the orders dated 25.09.2018 (Annex.9) and 28.05.2022 (Annex.10) passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur and Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur respectively, whereby objections filed by the petitioner were rejected. 2. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the first respondent/decree holder filed an eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur seeking eviction of the second respondent (since deceased), who is now represented through his legal heirs, for the suit premises. In the said suit, in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the parties to the Eviction Petition No.247/2011 entered into a compromise and based on the compromise, eviction decree came to be passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on 16.12.2011 (Annex.1). After passing of the judgment dated 16.12.2011 (Annex.1), the petitioner preferred her objections on 22.03.2012 viz. that in fact the second respondent (late Sh. Harsukhlal @ Hasmukh) was her tenant, who was paying the rent of the suit premises. In the objections, the petitioner further alleged that she alongwith her family was residing in the suit premises and there were tenants also. The petitioner further alleged in the objection that the suit premises was let out by her being the owner of the premises to tenant/second respondent, however, the tenant in connivance with first respondent obtained a consent decree and thereby obtained eviction certificate. It was further alleged in the objections that on 12.03.2012 the second respondent handed her over the keys of the premises and on coming to know about the said fact, the first respondent assaulted and abused her family members. The petitioner thereafter gave a report of the said incident at Police Station Ratanada, wherein the first respondent was restrained and he threatened them to take possession of the entire premises. In the objections filed, the petitioner further alleged that appropriate proceedings are being undertaken in the competent court for possession of the entire premises. It was further stated that since vacant possession was with her, therefore, proceedings could not be undertaken in execution. Thus, by filing objections, the petitioner prayed that since the eviction decree was obtained fraudulently, therefore, execution proceedings be stayed and possession certificate may not be issued. 3. It was further stated that since vacant possession was with her, therefore, proceedings could not be undertaken in execution. Thus, by filing objections, the petitioner prayed that since the eviction decree was obtained fraudulently, therefore, execution proceedings be stayed and possession certificate may not be issued. 3. On behalf of first respondent, reply to objections was filed while denying the facts averred in the objections it was inter-alia alleged that Harsukhlal was the tenant of the first respondent and he was receiving the rent of the suit premises and the premises was let out by him only. It was further alleged that the objector/petitioner was residing in a portion of the suit premises as licencee, which licence was revoked by the first respondent/decree holder. It was further alleged that Smt. Chuunibai was the owner of the suit premises, and who through her power of attorney sold the suit premises to the decree holder and his brother Anil Verma and the possession was handed over to them only and thus he and his brother were the owner of the suit premises. It was further alleged that the objector being his great aunt was permitted to reside in a portion of the premises, however, she developed ill-will and pursuant thereto, she filed objections in connivance with tenant, Harsukhlal. It was further stated in the reply that the first respondent is the owner of the suit and on account of obtaining electricity connection in the name of objector, she could not be treated as owner of the suit premises, as she was in permissive possession of the suit premises and the objector had not submitted any title document of the suit premises of her having ownership qua the suit premises. It was further alleged that the suit premises was let out by him to Harsukhlal and on account of default in payment of the rent, the eviction petition was filed, wherein on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, the eviction decree was passed. However, even after passing of agreed decree, with a view not to hand over the vacant possession pursuant to eviction decree to the first respondent, the tenant and petitioner filed objections. Tenant Harsukhlal had not handed over the possession to anyone and he was residing in the suit premises and the plea of handing over possession to petitioner was simply an eyewash. Tenant Harsukhlal had not handed over the possession to anyone and he was residing in the suit premises and the plea of handing over possession to petitioner was simply an eyewash. It was thus prayed that the Harsukhlal (tenant) was in possession in the capacity of tenant and the Rent Tribunal passed eviction decree on the basis of compromise arrived at between the landlord and the tenant, and thus the first respondent was entitled to have possession of the suit premises and the objections have been filed with a view to stall the execution proceedings. 4. The second respondent also filed reply to objections while alleging that he was not the tenant of the objector and the suit premises was taken on record by him from first respondent only. He also admitted that the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and the eviction decree was passed accordingly in favour of first respondent. It was further alleged that though he was ready to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the first respondent, however, when on account of death of his relative when he went to his village, then on 26.02.2012, the objector broke open the locks and put their belongings in the suit premises and also put a lock. A report in this regard was also given by him to the police station, wherein challan was filed against the objector and her family members. 5. The petitioner/objector filed rejoinder to the reply filed by second respondent/tenant and reiterated that the second respondent was her tenant and the same was let out in the presence of Taiyyab Ali, Gulab Mohd etc. It was further stated by the petitioner that they were the owner of the premises and were not the licencee. It was further stated that a suit for partition of the suit premises was preferred in the competent court, wherein status quo order was also passed. It was thus stated that collusive replies have been filed by first and second respondents with a view to usurp the rights of the petitioner/objector in the suit premises. 6. In support of the objections filed, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2, Taiyyab Ali and PW.3-Rajendra Singh and also filed affidavits. On behalf of first respondent, he himself examined as DW.1 and submitted his affidavit. 6. In support of the objections filed, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2, Taiyyab Ali and PW.3-Rajendra Singh and also filed affidavits. On behalf of first respondent, he himself examined as DW.1 and submitted his affidavit. The petitioner got 13 documents exhibited and on behalf of first respondent 9 documents were exhibited. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur framed three issues for adjudication. 8. The learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur after hearing the parties to the proceedings vide its order dated 25.09.2018 (Annex.9) proceeded to reject the application preferred by the petitioner/objector. 9. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order dated 25.09.2018 (Annex.9), preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, however, the appeal also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur vide order dated 28.05.2022 (Annex.10). 10. The petitioner has thus preferred the present writ petition challenging the orders impugned dated 25.09.2018 (Annex.9) and 28.05.2022 (Annex.10). 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 13.10.2022 in the presence of respondent No.1, who was present on the said date, granted an interim order to maintain status quo till the next date and the said interim order is still in currency. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/objector vehemently argued that both the Tribunals have committed illegality while passing the orders impugned, inasmuch as the learned Tribunals have not considered the evidence, admission and legal issues that were raised before them for adjudication meticulously. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the premises in question was separate into two parts viz. Part A and Part B and late Sh. Narendra and Sh. Rajendra, father of first respondent were in possession of their respective shares and that Smt. Chuunibai, mother-in-law of the objector, could not have sold the premises and that the sale-deed was executed fraudulently. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale is also under challenge in the suit filed for declaration and partition. He further submitted that both the Tribunals have placed much reliance on the fact that the petitioner/objector has failed to place on record anything with respect to title over the suit premises and the rent receipt, inasmuch as the question of ownership could not have been decided in a suit for eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and her husband late Sh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and her husband late Sh. Narendra were in conscious possession of Part B of the suit premises and the said fact was also recorded in the sale-deed executed in favour of first respondent by Smt. Chunnibai and thus it was amply proved by the petitioner that she was in possession of the suit premises. He further submitted that the learned Tribunals have not considered the fact that the electricity connection stood in the name of petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that both the learned Tribunals have relied upon the Challan filed against the petitioner in criminal complaint lodged by second respondent/tenant, which he submitted that the same has no bearing in the case at hand, however, the fraudulent acts and conduct of the first and second respondent have not at all been considered by the learned Tribunals. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that at the appellate stage, an application purportedly under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed seeking to lead additional evidence by the petitioner, however, the same has not been considered by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal while passing the order dated 28.05.2022 (Annex.10) though application was allowed, while simply observing that the petitioner/objector has failed to lead evidence in the form of rent receipt and rent-note with tenant Harsukhlal and thus the petitioner/objector failed to prove the objections. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a collusive eviction petition was filed by the first and second respondents and on the basis of same, a consensual eviction decree was obtained. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment in the cases of Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal & Anr. : AIR 1970 SC 794 , Mritunjoy Sett v. Jadunath Basak (D) by Lrs. : Civil Appeal No.3617 of 2011 decided on 26.04.2011, Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. : Civil Appeal Nos.6656-57 of 2010 decided on 16.08.2010, Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram ichharam @ Brijram & Ors. : AIR 1974 SC 471 and Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Ors. v. Sh. K.L. Bansal : 1970 AIR (Supreme Court) 838. 14. : Civil Appeal No.3617 of 2011 decided on 26.04.2011, Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. : Civil Appeal Nos.6656-57 of 2010 decided on 16.08.2010, Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram ichharam @ Brijram & Ors. : AIR 1974 SC 471 and Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Ors. v. Sh. K.L. Bansal : 1970 AIR (Supreme Court) 838. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/landlord submitted that the petitioner was not even party to the eviction proceedings, therefore, the petitioner has no right to even raise any objection to the eviction decree granted in favour of landlord/first respondent. Learned counsel for the first respondent further contended that the petitioner/objector is transferee pendente-lite, therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of specific bar contained under Order 21 Rule 102 of CPC. Learned counsel for the landlord further submitted that the eviction decree was granted on 16.12.2011 and the petitioner filed her objections on 22.03.2012 claiming that the possession of the suit premises was handed over to her on 12.03.2012 i.e. much after filing of the eviction petition and passing of eviction decree in favour of first respondent, therefore, the objection against the execution of the decree is not at all maintainable and, therefore, both the Tribunals have rightly rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the first respondent/landlord further argued that the petitioner/objector has miserably failed to prove her title over the suit premises and landlord-tenant relationship between her and the second respondent/tenant, and the onus to prove was upon the petitioner/objector, which she has failed to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord further submits that the petitioner/objector by filing objection in execution proceedings cannot be permitted to question the title of the first respondent and claim herself to be the owner of the suit premises. Learned counsel for the first respondent also drew the attention of the Court towards the fact that an FIR No.84/2012 was lodged against the petitioner/objector on 30.03.2012 wherein allegations of house trespass and theft of household articles were levelled against her and in the said FIR, after investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in the competent court. Learned counsel for the first respondent also drew the attention of the Court towards the fact that an FIR No.84/2012 was lodged against the petitioner/objector on 30.03.2012 wherein allegations of house trespass and theft of household articles were levelled against her and in the said FIR, after investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in the competent court. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord further submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has considered the discrepancy in the defense taken by the objector, in which she alleged that though in lieu of rent collected by her, rent receipts were issued by her to tenant, Harsukhlal, however, she has not produced the rent receipt or rent note in this regard. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord further submitted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, the writ Court cannot act as an appellate court and cannot even reassess or reevaluate the evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord further submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court, inasmuch as she is guilty of suppresio veri, inasmuch as the rent agreement between the first respondent and the second respondent was produced along with the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, however, curiously enough the petitioner has concealed the same. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 17. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord placed reliance on judgment in the cases of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust : 1998 (3) SCC 723 , Savitriben Mayarambhi Thakkar v. Pandya Harshkantbhai Dahyabhai : 2021 0 Supreme (Guj) 459, Chelladurai v. Avudaippan Konar : 2015 0 Supreme (Mad) 2179, Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Manpreet Singh & Ors. : 1992 AIR SC 435, Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shanker Patil : 2011 (1) AIR (Bom) (R) 130, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar : (2010) 4 SCC 350 , Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors. : AIR 1984 SC 38 , Nand Kishore v. Gopal Lal : 2018 (2) DNJ 637 and Ramjas Foundation & Anr. vs. U.O.I. & Ors. : 2010 0 AIR (SCW) 7091. 18. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and the case laws cited at bar. 19. vs. U.O.I. & Ors. : 2010 0 AIR (SCW) 7091. 18. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and the case laws cited at bar. 19. This Court finds that the petitioner/objector come with the plea that she was the owner of the suit premises and a portion of the suit premises was let out to tenant Harsukhlal under an oral tenancy @ Rs.2100/- per month, however, she has not produced anything to substantiate the said fact viz. rent receipt, if any, issued by her to tenant and the rent-note fortifying the fact that the suit premises was let out by her to tenant Harsukhlal. This Court also finds that the first respondent filed eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant (late Sh. Harsukhlal) and the said suit was decreed on the basis of compromise arrived at between them viz. Sunil Verma (landlord) and Harsukhlal (tenant) on 16.12.2011 (Annex.1), however, during the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed her objections, who was not party to the said lis viz. eviction petition filed by the first respondent/landlord. This Court also considered that the fact that an FIR No.80/2012 was lodged against the petitioner/objector on 30.03.2012 wherein allegations of house trespass and theft of household articles were levelled against her and in the said FIR, after investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 380 and 454/34 IPC in the competent court, the said fact has been brought on record by the respondent/landlord. 20. This Court also finds that the suit premises was sold out by Smt. Chunnibai in favour of first respondent and his brother, namely, Anil, who was the power of attorney of said Anil and in the capacity of owner, he filed eviction petition and on the contrary, the petitioner/objector has failed to produce any document to prove that tenant Harsukhlal was her tenant. The registered sale-deed dated 29.11.1994 still holds the field, inasmuch as it has not been cancelled by any competent court. This Court also finds that Smt. Chunnibai, through her power of attorney Kailash Verma, sold the entire suit premises to Anil Verma, who is the brother of first respondent vide registered sale-deed dated 29.11.1994, and no evidence against the same was led by the petitioner/objector. This Court also finds that Smt. Chunnibai, through her power of attorney Kailash Verma, sold the entire suit premises to Anil Verma, who is the brother of first respondent vide registered sale-deed dated 29.11.1994, and no evidence against the same was led by the petitioner/objector. The petitioner/tenant has not produced any title document of her having ownership over the suit premises and merely because a suit for partition was filed, the same cannot be a reason for raising objection to the eviction decree granted by the Rent Tribunal. 21. This Court also finds that the second respondent in his reply to objection admitted that the decree holder i.e. the first respondent is the landlord and the rent of the suit premises was paid to him only; he also admitted that on the basis of compromise arrived between him and the landlord, Sunil Verma, the eviction decree was passed. The tenant has also admitted the fact that the petitioner broke open the locks and put locks over the suit premises and his belongings were stolen, of which a criminal complaint was also filed. 22. This Court also finds that learned Rent Tribunal while deciding the issue No.2 has observed that the decree holder preferred Eviction Petition No.247/2011 against the tenant and the same was decreed on 16.12.2011 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties i.e. the first respondent and the second respondent. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner/ objector that the eviction petition was decided on the basis of compromise and the same was not decided on merits, cannot be countenanced. 23. This Court finds that in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of the Court or tribunal subordinate to it. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that in cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. In the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “78. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that in cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. In the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “78. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petition under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 79. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown, that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.” 24. The law with respect to exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Manpreet Singh & Ors. (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “While this is not the place to delve into or detail the self-constraints to be observed by the Courts while exercis- ing the jurisdiction under Article 226, one of them, which is relevant herein, is beyond dispute viz. while acting under Article 226, the High Court does not sit and/or act as an Appellate Authority over the orders/actions of the Subordinate Authorities/Tribunals.” 25. Insofar as judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same are of no avail to the petitioner. 26. This Court is satisfied that there has been no perversity in the orders impugned passed by both the learned Tribunals. In the opinion of this Court, no interference is called in the orders impugned passed by the learned Tribunals. 27. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Stay Petitions and misc. In the opinion of this Court, no interference is called in the orders impugned passed by the learned Tribunals. 27. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Stay Petitions and misc. applications, if any, also stand dismissed.