JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 1. The present revision petition is filed in the background wherein, an ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioner. Petitioner has remained absent willfully on more than five occasions. The trial Court and the first appellate Court has not found any cogent reason for setting aside the ex-parte decree, more particularly in the background that from the date of the suit, till date, no rent has been paid by the tenant petitioner. It is a case of a tenant who has no regard for his statutory contractual obligation of paying rent. It is mandatory in terms of the Act that a tenant pays rent. Act protects the rights of the tenant in turn. Rent is the primary obligation of the tenant. if he does not pay rent, then his conduct cannot be countenanced. Such litigants cannot be considered to be litigants of bona tide nature and equitable discretion under Order 9 Rule 13 C.F.C. cannot be exercised in his favour. 2. Those who remain absent and want to enjoy the fruits of possession of property without compensating the landlord, then in such circumstances, if the tenant wants to take the landlord for a ride that cannot be permitted. Both the Courts below have held against him, in revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not prepared to come to rescue of the petitioner. This Court feels that such litigants have to be handled with heavy hand. Those who fail to perform the contractual obligation of paying rent which is primary duty of the tenant, no interference is called for. There is no force in the revision petition. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******