JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 9.5.2006 whereby the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal upheld the order dated 1.4.2006 of the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 19(9) read with Section 21(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. By this application, the tenant-petitioner had prayed to the Court below that a new tenancy in his favour came into existence with the plaintiff-landlord w.e.f. 1.5.1994 for the rent of Rs. 5500/- for a period of six months and therefore, for the period from 1.5.1988 to 30.4.1994, the Tribunal should direct the plaintiff-landlord to produce the vouchers of rent paid by the petitioner if any. This Courts below rejected this application holding that it was for the plaintiff-landlord to produce the necessary evidence in support of his application for revision of rent and if such evidence was not produced, the plaintiff did so at his own peril. These orders are challenged by the tenant- petitioner by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was incumbent upon the Rent Tribunal below to have directed the plaintiff-landlord to produce such documents additional evidence prior to 30.4.1994 and necessary powers were conferred upon the Tribunal in this regard under Section 19 (9) of the Act. 4. This submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent - landlord relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of LRs. of Kishan Chand Sindhi v. Sohan Lal & Ors., reported in 2002 (5) WLC (Raj.) 823 wherein this Court held that it is no doubt true that at the time of final arguments, the defendants will be at liberty to take advantage of a lacuna in the plaintiff's case either on the plea of infirmity or lacuna in the evidence adduced, but that does not mean that he can be permitted to go to the extent of seeking a direction from the Court to the plaintiff's witness to produce the evidence so that he can extract an advantage out of it. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Suresh Shrimali, therefore, submits that the Courts below have committed an error in rejecting the said application of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Suresh Shrimali, therefore, submits that the Courts below have committed an error in rejecting the said application of the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. If the plaintiff-landlord has not produced evidence in support of his case, it is at his own peril and the defendant-tenant cannot compel him to produce any particular evidence. The orders of the Court below does not call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Consequently, this writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******