ORDER : 1. The petitioner-defendant No.2-tenant (hereinafter `the tenant') is aggrieved of the order dated 24-11-2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan City Jaipur (hereinafter `the Tribunal') in Eviction Application No.701/2007 dismissing the tenant's application under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `the Act of 2001') for cross examination of defendant No.1 and his witnesses. 2. Heard learned counsel for the tenant and perused the impugned order dated 24-11-2017 passed by the Tribunal. 3. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that in an eviction application filed in the year 2007 under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, after completion of the evidence of the landlord, the evidence of defendant No.1 was completed on 31-3-2010. The petitioner then moved an application on 18-3-2011 for further cross examination of defendant No.1 on the ground that the defendant No.1 was in collusion with the landlord. 4. The Tribunal considering the fact that the application in issue for further cross examination of defendant No.1 was filed with a delay of one year following his cross examination without disclosing any plausible reason for the delay, has dismissed the tenant's application. 5. The impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal in its discretion with reference to the facts adverted above, in view of the delay in moving the application by the defendant No.2 to cross examine the defendant No.1 who is his own uncle. 6. I find no perversity in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which can be invoked in situations of jurisdictional errors or where the orders passed by the courts below are vitiated by misdirection in law. Landlord-tenant dispute under the Act of 2001 are to be disposed of in a summary trial as far as possible within 240 days from the date of service of notice on opposite party. In that context the one year delay in moving the application was not condonable. This court as the supervisory court has no jurisdiction to pass orders without legal foundation/justification on the mere asking. Were it to be so, it would be destructive of the rule of law, faith of the litigating public and destroy the confidence and authority of the trial courts. I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.