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 pro