JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Application for early hearing is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. 2. With the consent of counsel for the petitioner, the arguments have been heard and writ petition is being decided finally at this stage. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 18.5.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer dismissing two applications filed by the petitioner-non applicant: one, under Order 7 Rule 11(A) CPC and the other, under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 4. Landlord—tenant disputes before the Rent Tribunal under Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 are to be adjudicated in a summary trial. As per Section 15(5) of the Act of 2001, petitions are to be disposed of within 240 days from the date of service on the opposite party. The provisions of CPC do not attract to such proceedings except to a very limited extent as provided and the petitions filed are to be disposed of only in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 5. I am of the considered view that in the statutory architecture of the Act of 2001 application/s under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are not at all visualised and hence are not maintainable as if allowed the purpose of the Act of 2001 would be completely defeated. 6. Further for the similar reason as aforesaid, Order 26 Rule 9 CPC also does not attract to the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. The non applicant's application thereunder was misdirected. Besides, it is well settled that appointment of a Court Commissioner for local inspection cannot be sought to prop-up the defence of a litigant before a trial court. It is for the contesting parties to bringing their evidence either in prosecution of the case or in defence thereto. The order of the trial court on this count was wholly discretionary. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any violation of legal principle or capriciousness vitiating the exercise of Rent Tribunal's discretion on this count. I find no force in the petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.