S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10674/2009 Surendra Kumar Vs. LRs of Rajendra Kumar & Ors. Date of Order :: 12.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, for the petitioner. ... This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 15.1.2009 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner affirming the order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the Judge, Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Civil Original Case No.364/2004. The necessary factual matrix of the case is that an application for revision of rent was filed by late Shri Rajendra Kumar against the present petitioner stating therein that the premises in question was rented out on 01.8.1990 with rent of Rs.330/- per months. In the application, a relief was sought for revising rent in a tune of Rs.1000/- per month. The learned Tribunal accepted the application and revised the rent as Rs.693/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The learned Appellate Tribunal partly accepted the appeal preferred by the petitioner by determining the rent as Rs.579/- per month w.e.f. 13.10.2004. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below failed to appreciate that the affidavits submitted by the respondents could not have been taken into consideration as evidence. It is further stated that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner, as such, even if the affidavits were admissible in evidence, contents therein could not have been taken into consideration by the courts below. I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. Under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 evidence can be adduced by submitting affidavits and besides that, as per Section 15 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal is having ample power to adopt its own course to adjudicate an issue within its jurisdiction to meet the ends of justice. With regards to the argument that no opportunity for cross-examination was given, suffice it to mention that admittedly the petitioner submitted counter-affidavits and those were taken into consideration by the courts below. The finding of fact was given by the courts below after considering the affidavit given by the respondent and counter-affidavit submitted by the petitioner. No material error exists in the orders impugned that may warrant interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Sanjay/-