ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') against the order dated 21.4.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by one of the Legal Representative of the original tenant for taking his affidavit on record has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord") filed the application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur against the original tenant Chagan Lal. The tenant filed the reply. During the pendency of the application, the original tenant Chagan Lal died and his LRs were taken on record. The Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide its order dated 24.9.2013 allowed the application filed by the landlord. Being aggrieved there from, LRs of the original tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. The appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 24.3.2015 allowed the appeal; set-aside the order dated 24.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal with the following directions:- 3. During the adjudication of the original application, as directed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, one of LR of the original tenant filed an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur stating that original tenant Chagan Lal submitted his affidavit in defence, but his cross-examination could not be done, therefore, the evidence of Chagan Lal was inadmissible. It was also stated that till the death of original tenant Chagan Lal, Braj Kishore (one of the LR of original tenant) was doing business with him, therefore he is having the complete knowledge of the facts of the case. It was stated that in support of the averments made in the reply, he is submitting his affidavit, which is equivalent to the affidavit submitted by his father, therefore, the same may be taken on record. 4. The landlord filed reply to the said application stating that the tenancy rights do not devolve. He prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the tenant Heard. Considered. 5. I am of the considered view that the matter was remanded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal to the Rent Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh after recording the cross-examination of the parties on the affidavits of the witnesses. He prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the tenant Heard. Considered. 5. I am of the considered view that the matter was remanded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal to the Rent Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh after recording the cross-examination of the parties on the affidavits of the witnesses. In case the tenant was allowed to file the affidavit afresh, it would tantamount to re-commence the trial, which was not the direction of the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The factum of death of the original plaintiff Chagan Lal was also before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, but no such prayer was made before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 6. In this view of the matter, I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 21.4.2016. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition fails and the same is dismissed. 7. However, taking into consideration the fact that the original application was filed before the Rent Tribunal in the year 2006 and 13 years have passed there from, whereas in terms of Section 15(5) of the Act of 2001, matters relating to landlord and tenant disputes are required to be decided within 240 days from the date of service of summons on the opposite party, the Rent Tribunal is directed to dispose of the pending original application as early as possible.