4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that as many as twenty effective opportunities were granted to the petitioners over a span of nearly six years for leading their evidence. The learned Rent Controller has recorded this chronology and observed that despite repeated adjournments, the petitioners failed to conclude their evidence. The closure of evidence was thus not abrupt, but preceded by sustained procedural indulgence.

5. It is se$led that grant of adjournments is not to be mechanical. The object of procedural law is to advance justice, but it equally mandates discipline in trial proceedings. The Court cannot permit a litigant to protract proceedings indefinitely, particularly in rent ma$ers where expeditious disposal is the legislative intent. Closure of evidence a’er repeated defaults is a recognized and lawful exercise of discretion.

6. Tested on this touchstone, the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The discretion exercised by the learned Rent Controller was founded upon material on record and consistent with procedural propriety.

7. However, it is equally true that the lis pertains to ejectment from immovable property. Denial of opportunity to lead evidence may have the effect of non-suiting a party without adjudication on merits. While litigants must be vigilant, the Court must also ensure that procedural defaults do not eclipse substantive justice, provided the other side is compensated and delay is not further perpetuated.

8. Balancing these competing considerations i.e., procedural discipline on one hand and adjudication on merits on the other, this Court is of the considered view that a singular, final opportunity may be granted, subject to stringent conditions, so that the petitioners conclude their evidence without further delay.

9. Consequently, while upholding the reasoning of the learned Rent Controller, one final opportunity is granted to the petitioners to conclude their entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the trial Court.

10. This indulgence shall be subject to payment of costs quantified at ₹25,000/-, to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents-defendants by way of demand dra’. Payment of the said amount shall be a condition precedent to the fixing of the date for petitioners’ evidence.

11. It is stated that the next date before the learned Rent Controller is 19.02.2026. The petitioners shall tender the aforesaid costs on that date. Upon such payment, the learned Rent Controller shall fix one effective date for petitioners’ evidence, to be produced at their own responsibility, without seeking any adjournment.

12. It is made clear that in the event of default on the said date, the order closing the evidence shall revive automatically, without requiring any further order.

13. Since this order has been passed without issuing notice to the respondents, in order to obviate further delay in the proceedings, it is clarified that the respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court, if so advised, in case they feel aggrieved by this order.

February 13, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE