Reasonable opportunity in rent fixation turns on the refused adjournment date, not earlier chances to be heard.

A reasonable opportunity to present a case must be assessed primarily by reference to the adjournment sought on the relevant date, not merely by earlier adjournments. Where a genuine cause is shown, refusal of that request may unjustly prevent a party from leading evidence and effectively defending the claim. In this note, the focus is on the effect of declining the adjournment sought on 24.11.1992 and the failure to consider the later application, which left the appellant without a fair hearing. The impugned rent fixation orders were therefore treated as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal of adjournment and the resulting denial of a further hearing deprived the appellant of a reasonable opportunity to present its case, warranting interference with the rent fixation order.

Analysis: The entitlement to a reasonable opportunity must be tested primarily with reference to the adjournment sought on the relevant date. Prior adjournments, if any, do not by themselves answer the issue where the specific request on that date was supported by a genuine cause. The record showed that the matter had been progressing through repeated dates, but the decisive question was whether the appellant was unjustly prevented from placing its evidence when the adjournment sought on 24.11.1992 was declined and the later application was not considered. The authorities below focused on earlier opportunities and did not address the effect of the refusal on the appellant's chance to effectively defend the claim.

Conclusion: The appellant had not been afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its case, and the impugned orders could not be sustained.

---