IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 436 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.12.2010. Lokesh Sood and another …Petitioners. Versus Rajinder Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.11.2010 whereby the application filed by the present petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the landlords) for closing the defence of the main defendants on account of non-payment of costs was allowed. 2. I do not want to interfere in the order whereby the Rent Controller has refused to close the evidence for non payment of costs since the matter is being contested for many years. However, I find from the record that the eviction petition was filed in the year 2004 and I also find that the case has been adjourned just for the asking on various occasions. Many opportunities 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 have been given to the respondents to lead evidence but on one pretext or the other adjournments were taken. The case is now fixed for respondents’ evidence on 11th January, 2011. In case the evidence is present it shall be examined on the said date. In case the evidence of the respondents is not present, the respondents shall be given only one more opportunity to lead evidence in the month of February or March, 2011 and no further opportunity shall be given. The Rent Controller shall ensure that this rent petition is disposed of latest by 30th April, 2011. It is made clear that in case any application is filed on the date fixed that will not prevent the Rent Controller from recording evidence. The evidence can be recorded and the application can be heard and decided simultaneously. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 14th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge