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 15th December, 2008, but with the consent of parties, it is finally decided at the stage of admission. 2. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner-defendant against the order Ann.3 dated 18th July, 2008 whereby evidence was closed and application filed for recalling of said order was also dismissed by learned Tribunal vide its order dated 23rd September, 2008. 3. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction before Rent Tribunal, Kota u/s.6 read with Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. However, the petitioner-defendant after notice being served, filed written statement and also placed affidavits on record and first date of hearing fixed for their defence was 08.02.2006. However, on some occasion petitioner took adjournment and on some occasion Presiding Officer was on leave. In the meanwhile, the petitioner-defendant filed application for taking certain documents on record on two occasions which was dismissed by learned Tribunal and against the same writ petition was also preferred before this court that too was dismissed. However, on 18th July, 2008 application was filed for the reason that counsel for petitioner defendant was unwell. But, learned Tribunal taking note of previous conduct of the petitioner closed their evidence vide order dated 18th July, 2008. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted application for recalling of the order seeking permission for their defence but that was also rejected vide order Ann.4 dated 24th September, 2008. 4. I have heard counsel for parties. 5. It is true that matter pertains to eviction of commercial premises/shop and affidavits were filed by petitioner-defendant at the time of submitting written statement. However, on few occasions, he took adjournments, but counsel submits that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner-defendant to come out with defence, he is ready to pay the cost for the prejudice caused to the respondent. Sufficient time was consumed by the petitioner that certainly frustrates the very object with which the Act has been legislated for early disposal of dispute. Sufficient time was consumed by the petitioner that certainly frustrates the very object with which the Act has been legislated for early disposal of dispute. But looking to the fact that on 18th July, 2008 the date on which their defence was struck off, application filed by the petitioner on 18th July, 2008 itself making request that on account of illness of their counsel, they could not be in a position to submit their defence, which certainly was required to be considered. 6. It was also informed to this court that petitioner-defendant submitted affidavits of three persons namely; Sanjay Kumar, Anjani Kalra & Vijendra Khandelwal which are already on record. 7. Taking note of overall facts & circumstances of the case, this court considers it proper to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit their defence/evidence and the respondent petitioner may also cross-examine the same on the date of hearing fixed by Tribunal certainly on payment of cost. 8. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. Orders dated 18th July, 2008 & 23rd September, 2008 are hereby quashed and set aside provided petitioner deposits cost of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of three weeks, which may be paid to the respondent-plaintiff. The learned Tribunal may grant one opportunity and on the next date of hearing petitioner be permitted to lead his evidence and respondent may also cross-examine on the same date or on the next following day, of which reference has been made supra and the learned Tribunal may proceed further in accordance with law. Cost may be paid to the respondent and receipt thereof may be filed in the proceedings before trial court.Writ Petition Allowed. *******