JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Sri R.K. Saxena, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, which is taken on record. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16.9.2014 and 8.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 24, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 121/2011 (Vijai Kumar Srivastava Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava), by which the petitioner's application dated 8.10.2014 filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', in short) read with Rule 22 (f) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is habitual of filing application after application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal. 4. Earlier, on 16.4.2014, another application filed by the petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, which was allowed after imposing a cost of Rs. 250/- with the observation that no further fresh evidence shall be taken on record and in case any such application is filed, the existing interim order shall be vacated. 5. Through present application, the tenant-petitioner wanted to bring on record the decision rendered in Appeal No. 3 of 2014 (Shekhar Chaturvedi Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava) with respect to release of another accommodation. The petitioner wants to establish that in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by another tenant against the release order in a proceeding of release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, with respect to another accommodation, the need of the present respondent-landlord stood satisfied. This application has been rejected by the learned Judge taking note of his earlier order dated 18.9.2014. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the new fact has arisen only three days before of the passing of the order dated 16.9.2014 and this was not in the notice of the petitioner and that is why, it could not be brought in the notice of the court earlier and the order dated 16.9.2014, cannot be made basis for rejecting the present application. In his submissions, the subsequent event can be brought into the notice of the court, provided it is necessary for substantial justice, at any stage of proceeding. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Prakash Gupta Vs. Riyaz Ahamad and Another ( 2009 (10) SCC 197 ). 7. Here in the case of Jai Prakash Gupta (supra), the new facts were sought to be brought on record in a writ proceeding and there, the application was rejected by the High Court. There Hon'ble Apex Court took the view that new facts for deciding the real controversy can be brought in the notice of the court even in the writ proceeding. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of High Court rejecting the application and remanded the matter before the High Court to re-consider the new material. 8. Sri Saxena, who appears for the respondent, submitted that the tenant-petitioner is trying to delay the proceeding since 2013. Earlier, on 14.7.2014, an application was also filed by the petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC and thereafter, again, an application was filed on 16.4.2014, which was allowed after imposing cost of Rs. 250/- with the observation that no further fresh evidence shall be taken on record and in case any such application is filed, the interim order shall be vacated and taking note of this, the court below has rejected the petitioner's application. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Shanti Devi (Smt.) and Others Vs. Chandra Bhusan Agarwal ( 2004 (1) ARC 440 ), where this Court has taken the view that these kinds of orders are interlocutory in nature and writ petition against such order is not maintainable. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 10. So far as taking note of the subsequent event, which has material bearing with the controversy involved in the case, for proper adjudication of the matter is concerned, it cannot be disputed if the subsequent event is material for deciding the real controversy involved in the case, then that has to be taken into consideration at any stage of the proceeding, as the purpose of the establishment of courts is to impart substantial justice to the parties. 11. 11. However, looking into the fact that the alleged appeal was dismissed only in the month of September, 2014 and whether that order has become final or it will be made subject matter of further challenge before this Court, that has to be waited as the limitation to challenge the order dated 16.9.2014 has yet not expired. So far as the view taken by the learned court below, while rejecting the application, is concerned, that cannot be said to be justified, but looking into the fact that the tenant's appeal has recently been dismissed, of which the petitioner wants to take advantage, can still be challenged and further, looking into the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Prakash Gupta (supra), that subsequent event can be taken note of at any stage of the proceeding, maybe in the writ petition, in case anything turns on this and ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this point in the writ petition. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find it to be a fit case to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. 13. However, it is observed that the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 24, Kanpur Nagar shall make all endeavour to decide Rent Appeal No. 121/2011 (Vijai Kumar Srivastava Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava)expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties. In case any adjournment is sought for, that may only be granted after imposing cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 500/- per adjournment, upon the party seeking adjournment with the direction to deposit the cost by the next date fixed. The interim order, vacated by the learned Additional District Judge shall remain in operation till the decision of the appeal.