JUDGMENT 1. - By order dated 20.8.2010, learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara closed the defendant-petitioners' evidence and fixed the matter for final hearing. 2. While challenging the order aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner failed to appear before the Court on the day fixed for tendering evidence because of ailment and thus, the court below erred in closing the evidence. It is also asserted that the interest of justice warrants for quashing the order impugned. 3. I have considered the argument advanced and also examined the record. 4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the Caveator-respondent No.1 that as a matter of fact the petitioner tenant by one or other reason want to prolong the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the original defendant late Shri Bhagwan Das was examined on 29.2.2008 and his cross-examination was made on 29.8.2008. The statements of present petitioner No.2 Shri Harish Kumar were to be recorded on 15.10.2008, but he failed to appear, as such, an opportunity to do so was given by imposing the cost in a tune of Rs. 100/-. On next date i.e. on 11.11.2009 too the defence witness did not appear before the Court. On 3.3.2010, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking permission to file fresh written statement and that application came to be rejected on 10.3.2010. On 8.4.2010, one Smt. Meena (petitioner No.4) sought permission to file an affidavit, but that application came to be rejected on 21.4.2010. On 12.5.2010, the defence witness was not present, therefore, matter was again adjourned with a cost of Rs. 200/-. On next date the petitioner did not choose to pay the cost and also did not choose to get the evidence recorded. 5. The facts stated above are not disputed and those clearly show that the petitioner is not co-operating in adjudication of the matter and was seeking adjournments in the matter for one or other reason. It is also pertinent to note that on 20.8.2010 too the petitioner without producing adequate evidence regarding his ailment sought adjournment. The respondent produced a photograph before the court to establish that as a matter of fact the petitioner No.2 (defence witness) was involved in his business at his shop. 6. It is also pertinent to note that on 20.8.2010 too the petitioner without producing adequate evidence regarding his ailment sought adjournment. The respondent produced a photograph before the court to establish that as a matter of fact the petitioner No.2 (defence witness) was involved in his business at his shop. 6. The trial court relying upon all the events of facts stated above reached at the conclusion that the grant of further time to adduce evidence shall not be in the interest of justice, thus, closed the evidence and fixed the matter for final hearing. 7. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he was avoiding the court proceedings and is prolonging the matter for one or other reason. Any sympathy with such a litigant shall be misplaced. The court rightly closed the evidence and fixed the matter for final disposal. The order impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference by this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Thus, the petition for writ is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******