JUDGMENT : (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.) This writ petition is filed with following prayer:- 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner suffered a final order dated 07.09.2018 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, “the Act of 2001”) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan and a consequential recovery certificate qua the subject shop. Pursuant to an execution application filed by the respondent/landlord/decree holder (for brevity, “decree holder”), possession of the subject shop was handed over to the decree holder under direction of the learned executing Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Act of 2001 read with Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 claiming restoration of possession of the suit shop. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022. In these circumstances, this writ petition is filed with the aforesaid prayers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed the execution application without complying with the provision of Order 21 Rule 11 inasmuch as it was neither supported by her affidavit nor, the relevant documents to reflect her title in the subject property were submitted alongwith. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. Alexander and Others : AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1165 . He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed in terms prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. Although, the application filed by the petitioner with similar prayer has been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022; but, conspicuously, it is not the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition inasmuch as no prayer has been made for its quashing. Assuming it to be under challenge, if examined on merits; the order reveals that the application was dismissed on the premise that on earlier occasions also, the petitioner had filed different applications with similar averments/reilef which were rejected. Assuming it to be under challenge, if examined on merits; the order reveals that the application was dismissed on the premise that on earlier occasions also, the petitioner had filed different applications with similar averments/reilef which were rejected. Although, in the memo of writ petition, this finding of the learned Rent Tribunal has not been assailed at all; however, on asking, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted certified copies of the order dated 08.02.2021, an application dated 19.03.2021 submitted by him and the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal thereupon for perusal of the Court. The documents are taken on record. As per the order dated 08.02.2021, the petitioner had prayed that alongwith the execution application, the decree holder has not submitted the requisite documents as required under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2001, Section 136 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and Order 19 CPC in absence whereof, possession warrant could not have been issued. However, the application came to be dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal. Thereafter, he filed another application on 19.03.2021 praying therein that the decree holder be directed to submit necessary documents in terms of provisions of Order 21 Rule 11(2) and (3) CPC. That application was also dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 16.11.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant application dated 03.08.2021 which was dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to offer any explanation for moving successive applications claiming same/similar relief. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner is making similar prayer(s) again and again despite its rejection which amounts to gross abuse of the process of law. 7. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for want of compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, the execution application was not maintainable, is wholly misconceived and misplaced. Indisputably, the provisions contained under the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of a decree is inapplicable so far as execution of the recovery certificate issued under the Act of 2001 is concerned. Section 20 of the Act of 2001 provides the exhaustive procedure for execution of the orders passed thereunder. Indisputably, the provisions contained under the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of a decree is inapplicable so far as execution of the recovery certificate issued under the Act of 2001 is concerned. Section 20 of the Act of 2001 provides the exhaustive procedure for execution of the orders passed thereunder. Its sub-section (4) reads as under:- “(4) The Rent Tribunal shall conduct the execution proceedings in relation to a final order or any other order passed under this Act in summary manner and dispose of the application for execution made under this section within forty five days from the date of service of notice on opposite party.” 8. In view of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of decree is not attracted in execution under the Act of 2001. 9. Even otherwise, dispossession of a tenant in execution of a recovery certificate can, by no stretch of imagination, be reckoned as his illegal dispossession so as to invite application of Section 11 of the Act of 2001. Similarly, for the same reason, Section 6 of the Act of 1963 has no applicability in the present case. 10. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced no submission qua acquisition of title over the subject property under the provisions of Articles 64 and 65 of the Act of 1963; however, since, such plea was taken in the application and the learned counsel has referred a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, this Court deems it just and proper to deal with it. It is trite law that a tenant never acquires title over the tenanted premises by adverse possession and he always remains a tenant. As already observed, since, the petitioner had suffered a recovery certificate treating him to be the tenant of the decree holder and the finding has attained finality, it is not open for him to raise such a plea. Further, neither the learned Rent Tribunal nor, this Court is the appropriate forum for claiming such relief. In view thereof, the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. (supra) has no applicability inasmuch as the issued involved therein was entirely different. 11. Further, neither the learned Rent Tribunal nor, this Court is the appropriate forum for claiming such relief. In view thereof, the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. (supra) has no applicability inasmuch as the issued involved therein was entirely different. 11. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that this writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, amounts to abuse of the process of the law and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 12. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. Out of the cost, a sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the decree holder in the shape of a demand draft/bankers cheque drawn in his name and the rest Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited with the Litigants Welfare Fund. Compliance be made within a period of six weeks from today. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.