K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 5th December, 1986 passed by the Small Clauses Judge, Bangalore City in H. R. C. No. 760/1984. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the tenant of the premises which is the rear portion of the House bearing No. 309, Servant Colony, Gavipuram, Bangalore-19. The respondent/landlord sought for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the grounds falling under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). According to the respondent/landlord the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 120/ -. ( 3 ) THE trial Court rejected the ground pleaded under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. However, it allowed the ground pleaded under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act and passed an order of eviction. Hence, the tenant has come up in the Revision Petition. ( 4 ) IT appears to me that it is not necessary to examine this case on merits. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Judge acted arbitrarily in refusing to grant time to cross-examine the respondent who was examined in the case after securing many adjournments. The learned counsel placed reliance on the order sheet dated 23-8-1986 to 10-11-1986. It is contended that the main Petition came to be posted for evidence on 10-9-1986. That on 10-9-1986 the landlord sought for time for examining himself. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 15-10-1986. On 15-10-1986, the learned counsel for the landlord sought for time on the ground that he was engaged in the High Court. Therefore, the Court adjourned the case to 10-11-1986. On 10-11-1986, in the morning the learned counsel for the landlord did not appear nor the landlord appeared. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 1 p. m. At 1 p. m. the landlord and his counsel appeared and the landlord was examined and three documents were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-3. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the tenant sought for time to cross-examine. The Court straight away refused the permission and treated cross-examination of P. W. 1 as closed. Thus, it is contended that even though the landlord took several adjournments for examining himself, the trial Court arbitrarily refused to grant one adjournment for cross-examining P. W. 1-the landlord. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the tenant sought for time to cross-examine. The Court straight away refused the permission and treated cross-examination of P. W. 1 as closed. Thus, it is contended that even though the landlord took several adjournments for examining himself, the trial Court arbitrarily refused to grant one adjournment for cross-examining P. W. 1-the landlord. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is amply borne out from the order sheet of the trial Court. No doubt subsequently the tenant also did not appear and adduce evidence because she could not get leave from her employer and her case also was closed. On 2-12-1986 the applications for reopening the case and recalling P. W. 1 for cross-examination and also for permitting the tenant to adduce evidence were filed. All those applications (I. As IV to VI) were rejected by the trial Court. On going through the order sheet, I am satisfied that the trial Court acted arbitrarily in refusing to grant an adjournment on 10-11-1986 for cross-examination of P. W. 1. It is this arbitrary act on the part of the trial Court which has led to subsequent development in the case. When once the order passed on 10-11-1986 refusing to grant time to cross-examine P. W. 1 is held to be not sustainable because the trial Court has acted arbitrarily in refusing to grant an adjournment, the subsequent development in the case cannot at all be made a ground to refuse an opportunity to the tenant to cross-examine P. W; 1 and to adduce evidence on her side. It is no doubt true that a counsel appearing for the party who has to cross-examine the witness is required to be ready to cross-examine as and when the examination-in-chief is over and that would be a very satisfactory way of conducting the trial. But never the less, there will be cases where it becomes necessary for the Court to accommodate in the interest of Justice and it is where the wisdom of the Court operates in exercising its discretion. This discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the background of the case and the development that had taken place in the case and the time occupied by the petitioner for adducing the evidence. This discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the background of the case and the development that had taken place in the case and the time occupied by the petitioner for adducing the evidence. Judging the case from these aspects, it is seen that the landlord secured many adjournments to get himself examined as P. W. 1 whereas when he was to be cross-examined, on the very first date due to inconvenience of the counsel appearing for the tenant, an adjournment was sought for cross-examining P. W. 1. But the learned Judge refused the adjournment and treated the cross-examination of P. W. 1 as closed. In view of the fact that the landlord had taken several adjournments for adducing the evidence, the Court ought to have given one opportunity to the tenant to cross-examine P. W. 1. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the trial court failed to exercise the discretion judiciously in refusing to grant one adjournment to cross-examine P. W. 1. Consequently, the tenant had no opportunity to cross-examine P. W. 1. The order of eviction is now passed on the evidence given by P. W. 1 in the chief-examination. Therefore, I am of the view that it is just and appropriate that one more opportunity should be given to the tenant/petitioner to cross-examine P. W. 1 and to adduce evidence on her behalf after the cross-examination of P. W. 1. It will still be open to the landlord to adduce further evidence if he intends to do so. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 5th December, 1986 passed in H. R. C. No. 760/1984 by the Small Clause court, Bangalore is set aside. The order dated 10-11-1986 refusing to grant adjoutnment to cross-examine P. W. 1 and also the subsequent order dated 2-12-1986 refusing to reopen the case and to recall P. W. 1 and afford an opportunity to the tenant to adduce evidence is also set aside. The case is remitted to the trial court with a direction to make available P. W. 1 for cross-examination by the tenant. It is also open to the landlord to adduce such further evidence as he desires to do so. Thereafter, it is open to the tenant to adduce evidence on her behalf. The case is remitted to the trial court with a direction to make available P. W. 1 for cross-examination by the tenant. It is also open to the landlord to adduce such further evidence as he desires to do so. Thereafter, it is open to the tenant to adduce evidence on her behalf. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23-9-1991. No fresh notice need be issued to the parties. On that day, the landlord shall make available himself for cross-examination. The trial Court shall complete the trial and decide the case within three months from 23-9-1991. --- *** --- .