Heard Mr. K. M. Firoz, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. Jeril Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, sufficient materials could not be placed before the Rent Control Court to establish that the petitioner was, in fact, unable to attend the court and give evidence.

3. We have been informed that the arguments before the Rent Control Court have been concluded and the judgment has been reserved.

4. The petitioner is the applicant who instituted the proceedings for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for his son. It is submitted that the son, for whose benefit the bona fide need is pleaded, could not be examined as he is physically disabled. However, the submissions made from the Bar are not supported by any corroborative documents.

5. Unless the judgment is pronounced in the meantime, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application with proper particulars and convincing materials seeking permission to adduce further evidence, upon such terms and conditions as the Rent Control Court may deem fit and proper. We make it clear that it sha