JUDGMENT 1. - After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, so far the merits of the case are concerned, this Court does not feel persuaded to consider interference in the orders passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali and the Rent Tribunal, Pali whereby ultimately, the petition for eviction as filed by the respondent-landlord stands allowed and a certificate for recovery of possession has been issued. 2. In the orders impugned, the Tribunals have recorded concurrent findings as regards the grounds of eviction of default, sub-letting and bona fide requirements of the landlord after due consideration of the material placed on record. 3. Though several submissions are sought to be made regarding the plea as suggested on behalf of the petitioners, who have been found to be the sub-tenants in the suit premises but then, all such submissions turn out to be hollow and baseless for the reason that the petitioners, though filed their affidavit in evidence but, did not appear in the witness box for cross-examination. Thus, it has practically been a case of no evidence on behalf of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that in order to extend an opportunity of leading evidence to the petitioners, the matter may be remanded for reconsideration. This submission also has its own shortcomings because nothing of any cause has been shown that prevented the petitioners from leading evidence and presenting the concerned deponents for cross-examination. Moreover, no argument in that regard appears to have been made before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Difficult it is to countenance any such prayer now in the writ jurisdiction. 5. In an overall view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the Appellate Rent Tribunal and Rent Tribunal have thoroughly examined the material on record before recording the findings against the petitioners. In the aforesaid view of the matter, on the merits of the case, this writ petition is required to be dismissed. However, when in the last, a prayer has been made for granting some extra time to the petitioners for vacating the premises in question after making alternative arrangements, this Court is of the view that a notice may be issued to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 so as to afford him an opportunity to make submissions in this regard. 6. However, when in the last, a prayer has been made for granting some extra time to the petitioners for vacating the premises in question after making alternative arrangements, this Court is of the view that a notice may be issued to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 so as to afford him an opportunity to make submissions in this regard. 6. Therefore, let notice be issued to the respondent No.1 only to the limited extent as to why some extra time for vacating the premises in question be not extended to the petitioners. 7. Notices be made returnable on 17.12.2012 and be given 'dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if so desired.As it is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings in execution are pending in this matter, though this Court is not inclined to pass any such order staying the proceedings in execution but then, the fact of issuance of notice in this writ petition may be brought to the notice of the executing court and in the interest of justice it is observed that it shall be permissible for the petitioners to make such a prayer, for granting of extra time to vacate, before the executing court also; and if the parties so desire, they may settle the matter as regards granting of such extra time to vacate on reasonable terms and conditions before the executing court too and for that purpose, pendency of this writ petition shall not be of any impediment.Petition dismissed. *******