WPMS No. 2636 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State. An application to file additional evidence was filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority after the closure of the evidence praying that during the pendency of the release application, some new facts have come into existence, namely, that the landlord/opposite party had acquired vacant possession of three rooms on the 1st floor on the same building and one room on the ground floor where the petitioner’s shop is located. This application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings. The Court finds that the release application was filed in the year 2010 and such facts which are being brought to the Court was a subsequent event. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is prima-facie of the opinion that the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the petitioner’s application was erroneous. The tenant should be given liberty to take such grounds for his defence and the tenant should not be non-suited on account of any technicality. The Court does not find that the delay in the disposal could not be compensated in terms of cost. Consequently, the Court without issuing notice to the landlord/opposite party set asides the impugned order and directs the Prescribed Authority to re-decide the matter within three weeks from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of the order. In the event, the landlord/opposite party is aggrieved by the order of this Court, it would be open to the landlord to file a recall application within the same period. The writ petition is disposed of. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 15.12.2011 Shiv