ORDER : 1. The petitioner-non-applicant-tenant (hereafter ‘the tenant') is aggrieved of the order dated 30-11-2017 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer (hereafter ‘the Tribunal') in case No.12/2016 closing her defence evidence. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents-applicants-landlords (hereafter ‘the landlords') filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereafter ‘the Act of 2001') for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted shop. On service of notice on the application, the tenant filed reply. Issues were then framed and thereafter evidence of the landlord was completed. The case was then proceeded with the defence evidence of the tenant. On 29-11-2017 an application for adjournment of the case on the ground of illness of Rajkumar, the tenant's husband, was moved and the case adjourned to 30-11-2017. On the said date Rajkumar himself appeared in court and again sought time for defence evidence for the reason of his purported illness. On the Rent Tribunal's query where the tenant Sangeeta and the other defence witness her son Shyam were, Rajkumar stated that they could not be present in court for defence evidence as they were at home to nurse him during his illness. 3. The Tribunal considering the fact that the allegedly ill Raj Kumar himself attended court and submitted the application for adjournment of the case for reason of being unwell, and that in any event there was no justification for the absence of other defence witnesses, the tenant and her son, in its discretion refused adjournment at it found the prayer therefor was totally baseless and unsustainable and an attempt of the tenant was to delay the trial in the eviction petition. The defence evidence in the circumstances was closed vide the impugned order dated 30-11-2017. The eviction petition was then set up for final arguments on 14-12- 2017. Hence, this petition. 4. The defence evidence in the circumstances was closed vide the impugned order dated 30-11-2017. The eviction petition was then set up for final arguments on 14-12- 2017. Hence, this petition. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 30-11-2017 passed by the Tribunal, I find no perversity in the discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in closing the tenant's defence evidence in the facts of the case where adjournments were casually and without good reasons sought only to protract trial in the eviction petition required by the Act of 2001 to be expeditiously disposed of as far as possible within 240 days of service on the opposite party in a summary trial eschewing the CPC and only compliant with natural justice. The impugned order therefore warrant no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which can be invoked in situations of jurisdictional errors or where the orders passed by the court below is vitiated by a misdirection in law or suffer from perversity. Instead the tenant was evidently seeking to misuse the discretion of the Rent Tribunal to adjourn a case with an intent to delay in trial and final adjudication of the eviction petition. 5. There is no force in the petition, which has been casually filed without an iota of legal foundation. The same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Jaipur within a period of four weeks from today.