2016 and 1st September, 2016 repeatedly sought time to file written statement but did not file; (xi) that the inference was that the petitioner had nothing to show and was merely buying time; (xii) that both parties were directed to file evidence on 15th September, 2016; (xiii) that though DJB filed affidavit of evidence, the petitioner did not file any evidence either; (xiv) that on 29th September, 2016, both parties were heard and the petitioner also submitted written arguments; (xv) that the petitioner, in his written arguments pleaded (a) that his wife was ill; (b) that other quarters had also been unauthorisedly occupied; (c) that as and when the wife of the petitioner becomes fit, he will vacate the premises; (d) that his bona fide was apparent from his regular payment of penal charges; (xvi) that the petitioner, on medical grounds could not be granted any more retention period under the Rules and had already been granted the maximum retention period; (xvii) that therefore the argument of making payment of penal charges could not entitle the petitioner under the Rules to continue in the premises. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of the PP Act, the order of eviction was passed.
