IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 356 of 2011 Decided on: 26.09.2011 Uma Wati …Petitioner. Versus EIH Associated Hotels Limited …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. B. Nandan Vashisth, Advocate, vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lall and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) On instructions received from Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has challenged the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla, whereby the evidence of the petitioner-tenant has been closed by the order of the Court. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- 3. It is the admitted case that four opportunities were granted to the tenant to lead evidence. In my view, there is no error in the order of the learned Rent Controller, but keeping in view of the larger interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. 4. The matter is listed before the learned Rent Controller on 19th October, 2011, for arguments. On the said date, instead of arguments, the case shall be fixed for evidence of the petitioner- tenant. The petitioner-tenant may appear as her own witness and produce any other evidence, but no further opportunity shall be granted in any circumstance. The learned Rent Controller shall endeavor to dispose of the matter latest by 31st December, 2011. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 26, 2011 (rajni)