JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Bharat Sankhla appears for respondent No.1. Service of respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 2. By the instant writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order Annex. P/6 dated 14.09.2007 passed by respondent No.2. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order under challenge. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the petitioner filed written statement and the respondent No.1 landlord filed a rejoinder thereto, along with the rejoinder, a photo copy of document Ex.11 has been filed. In the rejoinder, respondent No.1 took a ground of subletting as also the fact stated in respect of one Teja Ram about his vocation being carried at M.M. Market and shifting thereof to newly constructed Modi Market. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the respondent No.2 has not taken on record the fact of subletting and held that ground of subletting cannot be taken and considered by way of filing rejoinder. So far as filing of document along with rejoinder is concerned, the trial Court has taken care of the fact that if the respondent landlord files the original document, a copy whereof is supplied to the petitioner tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent landlord submits that in sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001' hereinafter), there is a provision permitting the party to file a rejoinder if any, after serving copy to the opposite party within a period of thirty days from the date of service of reply. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that affidavit and the document cannot he permitted to be filed along with rejoinder. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to filing of the affidavit and document along with the rejoinder cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in Anop Chand v. Nand Kishore & Ors., AIR 2008 (NOC) 205 (Raj.) wherein while considering the provision of Section 15(4) of the Act of 2001, this Court held that Section 15(4) of the Act, 2001 does not prohibit the landlord from filing documents and affidavits along with rejoinder. In this view of the matter, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. In this view of the matter, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. So far as the averments raised in the rejoinder with regard to Teja Ram Is concerned, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent landlord that it was the petitioner, who in his written statement made averments in respect of Teja Ram and his vocation as also shifting of the shop and that has only been controverted in the rejoinder. In this view of the matter, the facts stated in the rejoinder with regard to Teja Ram cannot he said to be suffered from any error and therefore, in my view, respondent No.2 was justified in passing the order impugned and therefore, warrants no interference in the writ jurisdiction. 5. The writ pet ire, dismissed. There shall no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******