JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant-respondents filed an application for eviction in respect of rented premise against non applicant-petitioner before Rent Tribunal in the year 2005 wherein DW-1 was cross-examined on 25th January, 2008. The counsel for the non applicant filed an application alongwith affidavit of DW-2 who was also present in the court. However, the counsel for the applicant sought time to file reply to the application. The trial court vide its order dated 2nd April, 2008 rejected the application of the non applicant and did not take on record the affidavit of DW-2. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the non applicant tenant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that DW-1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant on 25th January, 2008 and on the same day he moved an application alongwith affidavit of DW-2 and he was also present in the court but instead of cross-examining the DW-2, the learned counsel for the applicant sought time to file reply to the said application and now trial court has rejected his application, therefore, a last opportunity in the case may be granted to him, so the affidavit of DW-2 may be taken on record and counsel for the applicant may cross-examine him. He submits that so far as the delay is concerned, he is prepared to pay the reasonable amount of cost. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present application for eviction was filed in the year 2005 and under the provisions of new Rent Control Act, wherein there is a provision for summary disposal of the application preferably within a period of 240 days, but for one reason or the other, the learned counsel for the non applicant-tenant is delaying the matter unnecessarily, therefore, learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. He contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. He alternatively contended that a fixed date may be given in the case for the aforesaid purpose on payment of heavy cost. 6. He contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. He alternatively contended that a fixed date may be given in the case for the aforesaid purpose on payment of heavy cost. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2008, but in the interest of justice, I think it fit and proper to grant one last opportunity to non applicant to place on record the affidavit of DW-2 and direct the counsel for the applicant to cross-examine him on a particular date to be fixed by this Court on payment of cost. 7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that affidavit of DW-2 may be taken on record and he may be cross-examined by counsel for the applicant on 6th August, 2008. The non applicant will pay the amount of cost of Rs. 3000/- which will be paid on or before the next date, failing which the affidavit of DW-2 will not be taken on record and he will not be cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted. 8. So far as this writ petition is concerned, there will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******