JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has come up on application U/Art.226 (3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte stay order passed by this court dated 20th March, 2006, but with the consent of parties, it has been finally heard at this stage. 2. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner-defendants assailing order of learned Rent Tribunal dated 23rd November, 2006 whereby their application filed on 12th January, 2005 for taking the document Ann.4 of Municipal Council, Ajmer which discloses house tax of the financial year 1999-2000 on record, was rejected after assigning cogent reasons under order impugned. 3. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal & bona fide necessity u/s.9 of Rent Control Act, 2001 before Tribunal. Petitioner-defendants filed their written statement and necessary documents were enclosed by the parties which are required for adjudication of the dispute available in their possession and the evidence was also recorded. It will be relevant to mention that defence evidence was closed on 5th January, 2005. After matter was riped up for final hearing, petitioner filed various applications, but he only press application filed on 12th January, 2005 whereby he wanted to take document Ann.4 of Municipal Council, Ajmer in regard to house tax for the financial year 1999-2000 on record to show that Dharam Das was not the tenant of the respondent-plaintiff for sufficient long time which was seriously opposed by counsel for respondents. 4. Learned Rent Tribunal after taking into consideration the material on record observed that as regards shop of whom Dharam Das was tenant has indisputably came extensively in the cross-examination of petitioner-defendants which was read over before this Court also which discloses about the status of Dharam Das, his tenancy and dimensions of the shop which is in his possession as tenant. Taking note thereof, since the matter riped up for final hearing and the document which the petitioner wants to place on record, was of the financial year 1999-2000 of Municipal Council, Ajmer certainly cannot be said to be a document which came into existence after defence evidence was closed on 5th January, 2005. Taking note thereof, learned Tribunal has not considered appropriate to grant permission to the petitioner for taking document [Ann.4] on record and accordingly, rejected their application under order impugned. 5. Taking note thereof, learned Tribunal has not considered appropriate to grant permission to the petitioner for taking document [Ann.4] on record and accordingly, rejected their application under order impugned. 5. I have heard counsel for parties and does not find any any manifest error which has been committed by Tribunal in passing order impugned which may call for interference. 6. Consequently, writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******