1 27 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4772/2009. Padamchand Vs. Pannalal & Anr. Date of Order :: 4th September 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: By an order dated 20.08.2008 as passed in Case No. 6/2008 instituted under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on the grievance of the petitioner-tenant about withholding of the amenities, the Rent Tribunal, Banswara directed, inter alia, that the electricity and water amenities as were available before 18.06.2008 shall be restored by the respondent-landlord. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application for enforcing the order dated 20.08.2008 whereupon, the Tribunal proceeded to pass an order dated 20.10.2008 to the effect that upon the tenant-petitioner making an application, the concerned Electricity Board may provide a sub-meter. However, thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24.02.2009, the Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application for enforcement of the earlier order for the reason that the petitioner failed to apply for sub-meter. Seeking to assail the said order dated 24.02.2009, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that upon his approaching 2 the Board concerned, he was informed that the Board was not providing the sub-meter and the same was to be arranged and installed by the landlord at his own level. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered such relevant aspects of the matter and has proceeded to reject the application in a wholly cursory manner. So far the submissions as made in this writ petition about the petitioner approaching the concerned Electricity Board and having been informed about the Board not supplying the sub- meter and other connected facts are concerned, no such application has been placed on record, if moved before the said Board or even before the Tribunal concerned stating all such facts. The order impugned only records that the petitioner did not apply to the Electricity Board for sub-meter and hence, there was non-compliance of the requirements of the order dated 20.10.2008. Such observations cannot be said to be altogether unjustified. If there was anything requiring clarification of the order dated 20.10.2008, the petitioner ought to have made specific submissions before the Tribunal only. In any case, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order dated 24.02.2009 in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//