D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.368/2008 Rajendra Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar & Ors.Vs.Goverdhan Lal & Ors. Date of Judgment :: March 04, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Anoop Dhand for the appellants. *** Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.649/2007. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The application filed by the landlord appellants for determination of rental was allowed by the court below which was challenged by the defendant-tenant in appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The appeal filed by the tenant was disposed of directing the court below to re-hear the matter and decide the relationship of landlord and tenant on evidence giving rise to the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned appellate court and also the learned Single Judge of this Court did not consider the case of the appellants in correct perspective of the case, and therefore, was not sustainable in law. -2- From bare perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, it is manifest that it exercised its power under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 and without prejudice to the right, title and interest of the parties, remitted back the matter for re-hearing on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of evidence. The order passed by the learned appellate court, however, was scrutinized by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and having been satisfied with the reasons assigned by the learned appellate court, dismissed the writ application. The discretion so exercised by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence, therefore, would not be subject matter of intra court appeal in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, this appeal is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-