JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has come up on application filed by the respondent under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of exparte interim order passed by this Court dated 31.01.2011.However, with consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard at this stage. 2. As alleged in the writ petition, non petitioner-1 who has informed to this Court is senior citizen filed application Under section 9 of the Rent Control Act,2001 ("Act,2001") on the ground of subletting & personal & bona fide necessity before the Rent Tribunal on14.05.2007 impleading the petitioner &respondent-2 as defendants. Notice of the application came to be served admittedly upon both the respondents on 02.07.2007. However,non-petitioner-2 firm Ladu Ram Ramni was through proprietor Raj Kumar filed its reply to the eviction application on 04.07.2007 but so far as present petitioner is concerned, no reply was filed on his behalf on that day and exparte proceedings were initiated against him vide order dated 20.07.2007. However, this fact came to his notice as alleged by him on26.10.2009. It will be relevant to record that in his application copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.3 it was specifically averred by him in para-6 that the petitioner admits the reply filed by non-petitioner-2.However, he additionally wants to file his own affidavit and documents in support of his defence. 3. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order impugned dated 10.11.2010 primarily on the premise that the application filed by the petitioner was not duly supported by affidavit as such the fact alleged by him in his application regarding exparte proceedings initiated by the Tribunal came to his notice on 26.10.2009 cannot be accepted at its face value and was convinced with the submissions made by the non-petitioner-1-landlord that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 4. It has been informed to this Court that in the pending eviction application after the reply being filed by the non-petitioner-2 rejoinder has been filed and plaintiffs evidence is yet to be recorded and at this stage order impugned dated 10.11.2010 came to be passed. 5. 4. It has been informed to this Court that in the pending eviction application after the reply being filed by the non-petitioner-2 rejoinder has been filed and plaintiffs evidence is yet to be recorded and at this stage order impugned dated 10.11.2010 came to be passed. 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that notice was served only on 02.07.2007 and the order was passed by the Tribunal initiating exparte proceedings against the petitioner on20.07.2007 which is wholly arbitrary and adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him and that is the mandate Under section 21 of the Act, 2001 and any order passed in the pending eviction application rights of the present petitioner will be seriously affected and if reasonable opportunity is afforded to him he could file his own affidavit and documents in support of his defence and that may not delay the proceedings as well. 6. Counsel for respondent on the other hand submits that non-petitioner-1 is a senior citizen and eviction application came to be filed by him way back in 2007 but for one or the other reason the matter has been lingered on and because of filing of the present writ petition the proceedings in the eviction application came to be stayed. 7. He further submits that after initiating exparte proceedings vide order dated 20.07.2007 the petitioner was under obligation at least to file reply and it appears that he was never vigilant towards his right more so when it has not been controverted by the petitioner that when the notice of the eviction application was served upon him on 02.07.2007, taking note there of counsel submits that the order passed by the learned Tribunal does not require interference. 8. Counsel for respondent further submits that even as per the mandate Under section 15(5) of the Act,2001 eviction application filed has to be disposed of within a period of 240 days after service of notice upon the respondent and in the instant case eviction application came to be filed way back in 2007 and almost four years have rolled by now but still it is pending at the stage of recording plaintiff's evidence and he being the senior citizen its pendency is causing great prejudice to him. 9. 9. This Court finds substance in the submission made by the counsel for petitioner for the reason that admittedly notice was served on 02.07.2007 and Under section 15(3) of the Act,2001 reply is to be filed by the defendant within 45 days of service being effected upon the petitioner-defendant. 10. .In the instant case, when the notice was served on 02.07.2007 there was no justification available for the learned Tribunal to initiate exparte proceedings against the petitioner (defendant-2) on 20.07.2007, even adequate opportunity contemplated Under section 15(3) of the Act,2001 was not made available to the petitioner and at leas this right to file his affidavit or documents in support of its defence cannot be denied and in the opinion of this Court the order of the Tribunal dated 10.11.2010 in the facts of the instant case does not hold good and deserves to be set aside. At the same time, this Court would like to record that the petitioner in his application filed Under section 21 of the Act,2001 specifically averred that he admits the reply of the defendant-non-petitioner-2 and only intends to file his own affidavit and documents in support of his defence and that being so this Court considers it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to do the needful. 11. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order impugned passed by the Tribunal dated 10.11.2010 stand squashed and set aside. The petitioner may file his own affidavit and documents in support of his defence by the end of February, 2012 and the non-petitioner-plaintiff is also at liberty to file its counter and also the documents in addition thereto if advised, to counter the same within a period of two weeks thereafter and the learned Tribunal after taking such material on record may proceed and expeditiously decide the eviction application keeping in view the mandate Under section 15(5) of the Act, 2001. No cost.Petition allowed. *******