JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - Petitioner admittedly is a tenant of a premises of which respondent No. 3 Har Prasad is landlord. Suit No. 29 of 1974 was filed by the landlord against the petitioner for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. On 14th September, 1981 an ex parte order was passed against the petitioner and on 15th September, 1981 an ex parte decree was passed. An application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was moved on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Munsif on 20th September, 1983. Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal which too has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karvi district Banda. It is these two orders passed by the Munsif and the Additional District Judge which have been challenged in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance and that the two courts below have taken an incorrect view that the version put forward by the petitioner was not worthy of reliance. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however contended that the suit is going on since that year 1962 and that on three occasions i.e. 27-4-1968, 21-12-1972 and 14-9-1981 ex parte decrees had been passed against the petitioner which had later been set aside. It has been strenuously urged that on 14-9-1981 the petitioner intentionally in order to delay the suit abstained himself. It has also been argued that the findings recorded by the two courts below are findings of fact which require no interference in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length I am of the opinion that the finding recorded on the question or sufficient cause shown by the petitioner is a finding of fact. I have carefully gone through the judgment and in my opinion, the two courts below have, after careful appraisal of the evidence have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was, in fact, present in the court on the date of hearing. 5. No other point has been pressed before me. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is discharged. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.