JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.5.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner seeking leave to produce affidavits of the additional witnesses, stands rejected. 2. The respondent-landlord has preferred a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity. The bona fide necessity of the premises is pleaded in terms that the respondent-plaintiff intend to construct a garage for keeping his vehicles and for that purpose the tenants occupying the adjoining premises have already promised to vacate the premises. 3. The suit is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. In support of the case set out, the petitioner filed an affidavit of one Shri Kalam Malik @ Raju Bengali who is a tenant in an adjoining shop let out by the respondent-landlord, stating that he has never assured the landlord to vacate the premises. However, the said witness did not appear before the court for cross examination. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave of the court to produce affidavits of two witnesses namely, Shri Sukh Singh Gehlot and Shri Sambhoo Singh Sankhla in place of Raju Bengali. 5. After due consideration, the application has been rejected by the court below by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in refusing to take the additional affidavits sought to be produced on behalf of the petitioner on record. It is submitted that Kalam Malik who was sought to be produced as witness on behalf of the petitioner-defendant has left Jodhpur and is not ready to depose in favour of the petitioner and therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the petitioner is permitted to produce additional witnesses for examination. Learned counsel submitted that if the affidavit sought to be produced are not taken on record the defence of the petitioner shall be vitally affected and therefore, in the interest of justice, the additional affidavits sought to be produced on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be taken on record. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the Tribunal is under an obligation to dispose of the proceedings within the stipulated time frame. As per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15, the tenant is under an obligation to file his reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of service of notice. The rejoinder, if any, is required to be filed by the opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the reply. The Rent Tribunal is required to dispose of the petition within a period of 240 days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. 9. It is to be noticed that a reply to the petition along with affidavits was filed by the petitioner way back on 21.10.08 and thus, the matter is pending consideration before the Rent Tribunal for last more than 5 years. Admittedly, the petitioner intend to produce the affidavits of witnesses Sukh Singhv and Shambu Singh on record inasmuch as one of his witness Kalam Malik @ Raju Bengali has refused to appear before the Rent Tribunal for examination. It is pertinent to note that Mr.Kalam Malik has deposed in the affidavit filed that he had never assured the landlord for handing over the vacant possession of the shop. It is not the case of the petitioner that Sukh Singh Gehlot and Shambhu Singh are tenants of the respondent-landlord in the adjoining shops and therefore, the entire edifice raised by the petitioner for producing them as witness in substitution of the witness Kalam Malik is without foundation. If the petitioner wanted to produce them as witnesses nothing prevented him for filing their affidavits before the Rent Tribunal at the appropriate stage. 10. Suffice it to say that the only reason assigned by the petitioner for producing the additional witnesses cannot be considered to be a plausible reason so as to permit the petitioner to produce the additional affidavits at this belated stage ignoring the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, which mandates filing of the reply and affidavits within the stipulated period. 11. 11. The legislature in its wisdom has incorporated the provisions providing for time limits for different stages of proceedings as also the maximum time to be taken for disposal of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The mandate of the legislature in providing for disposal of the matter within time frame shall stand defeated if such a negligence on the part of the party to the proceedings is condoned. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in refusing to take the affidavits sought to be produced by the petitioner on record does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******