JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments by which the suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the respondent landlord has been decreed by both the courts below. 3. The respondent landlord instituted Small Causes Suit No.18 of 2002 against the petitioner tenant for eviction from the disputed premises with the allegation that he was his tenant at Rs.300/- per month and has been in arrears of rent for more than four months and despite notices, had not paid the said amount nor vacated the premises. The petitioner tenant contested the suit with the allegation that he was a tenant @ Rs.30/- per month and no rent was due and in fact he had spent about Rs.80,000/- for maintenance of the premises and is prepared to buy the house also. 4. The suit was filed in December 2002 and the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 9th November 2005 but the matter was got adjourned by the petitioner for three years whereafter in February 2008 he filed his affidavit and thereafter he absented and therefore the trial court fixed a date for final hearing vide order dated 11.9.2008. However, the tenant moved an application dated 25.9.2008 which was numbered as Paper No.52C for recall of the order dated 11.9.2008 but none appeared to press the application which was rejected vide order dated 30.9.2008 and it became final and thereafter the suit was decreed with the finding that the rate of rent was Rs.300/- per month and the petitioner had not deposited any amount of rent either in any Bank or in the Court since March 2007. 5. It is urged that the petitioner could not appear on several occasions as his father was suffering from cancer and ultimately he died on 27.8.2009 and therefore, he may be given a chance to adduce his evidence. 6. From the record available in the petition, it shows that no such ground was raised before the revisional court and the revisional court after recording categorical finding that the petitioner has delayed the matter since 2002, rejected the revision. 7. No other point has been urged. 8. In the opinion of the Court, there is no error of law much less an error apparent on record which requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.