ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led by the petitioner-tenant to impugned order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the application filed by the him for examining the allegedly forged CD from Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in connection with voice analysis of the respondent-landlord regarding the payment of receipt of rent, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) was submitted by the respondent-landlord against him before the Tribunal on the ground of his bona fide necessity for the premises in question. Counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid petition was submitted by the petitioner-tenant wherein it was denied by him that no rent was due, rather, an excessive rent of Rs.56,400/- was paid to the respondent-landlord and even a counter-claim in this regard was also submitted by the petitioner-tenant for refund of the said amount. Counsel submits that on 03.08.2016 around 9:20 P.M., the respondent-landlord came at the shop of the petitioner-tenant where certain conversation took place between them and the same was recorded in a CD wherein the respondent- landlord has admitted the fact the petitioner -tenant has given excess rent amount of Rs.56,400/- to the respondent-landlord. Counsel submits that recording of conversation clearly indicates that there was no default in payment of rent or nothing is in arrears. Counsel submits that with a view to have clarity of the aforesaid fact, an application was submitted on 18.02.2021 for analysing from the FSL the voice of the respondent-landlord which was recorded in the CD. Thereafter, a certificate in compliance of the provisions contained under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was submitted by the petitioner-tenant. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner- tenant has been rejected by the Tribunal holding that no such certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was submitted with the documents and the fact regarding receipt of the rent can be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of recording of the evidence and on this count, the application submitted by the petitioner-tenant was rejected. Counsel submits that once this fact has been admitted by the respondent-landlord about the receipt of the excess rent, the question with regard to default in rent does not arise and this fact can be proved on the basis of the analysis of the said CD by FSL with regard to the conversation between the parties. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-landlord on instructions from his client, submits that the respondent-landlord did not press the issue of non-payment of rent or its arrears, to the extent of amount of Rs. 56,400/-. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, now the relief sought by the petitioner- tenant in the aforesaid application before the Tribunal does not survive and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from payment of rent or arrears thereof, the conversation which is recorded in the CD indicates that the respondent-landlord wanted to get the possession of the premises and wanted to sell the same and this fact has been established that he does not have any bona fide necessity of the premises in question and for that purpose also, the voice of the respondent-landlord is required to be analyzed by the FSL. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner-tenant indicates that his averment was confined to the extent of payment of excess amount of Rs.56,400/- only. In the said application, no averment has been made by the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord has made any conversation with regard to selling of the premises in question. The prayer made in the said application was confined to the extent of analysis of voice of the respondent-landlord by the FSL, with regard to receipt of excess rent i.e. Rs. 56,400/- from the petitioner-tenant. 7. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the respondent-landlord on instruction from the respondent-landlord that he would not insist on the prayer for the payment of excess amount of Rs. 56,400/- hence no cause of action survives with the petitioner-tenant to continue with this writ petition and the same has become infructuous. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.