JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 26.8.1996 and 19.1.2010 by which the suit for arrears of rent and eviction filed by the respondent landlord has been decreed by both the courts below. 3. The respondent landlord instituted a small causes Suit No. 372 of 1985 for the eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner tenant from the disputed premises on the ground that he had purchased the disputed premises vide registered sale deed dated 25.9.1978 from the erstwhile owner/landlord wherein the petitioner was a tenant at Rs. 10/- per month and despite notice he had not paid rent from July, 1979. The petitioner tenant filed his written statement denying that the contesting respondent was the owner and landlord as the disputed premises belonged to a temple for which a declaratory suit was also pending and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 4. The trial court after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit and the resultant revision has also been dismissed. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the trial court is an ex parte order passed without considering his defence and affirmation by the revisional court is against law. 6. It is evident from the record that the suit was filed in 1985. Twice orders were passed for proceeding ex parte against the petitioner on 18.1.1993 and 23.2.1995, but taking a lenient view the Court recalled the orders subject to payment of cost. The cost was never deposited. Thereafter the matter was fixed on at least eight occasions but the petitioner moved repeated adjournment applications which were allowed subject to payment of cost. This cost was also never deposited and therefore, the trial court passed an order striking off the defence under Section 35(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure and rendered the judgment. The revisional court has upheld the exercise of power. In the opinion of the Court, the reasoning given by the courts below have neither been shown to be perverse nor against law but it is a wise exercise of jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The revisional court has upheld the exercise of power. In the opinion of the Court, the reasoning given by the courts below have neither been shown to be perverse nor against law but it is a wise exercise of jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Lastly, it is urged that the courts below had wrongly held that the respondent was the owner/landlord despite the fact that a declaratory suit was pending between temple and the transferor of the contesting respondent. 8. Both the courts below have considered all the evidence on record and have recorded findings of fact to the effect that the petitioner earlier was attorning in favour of the transferor of the contesting respondent and there was sufficient evidence to hold that the petitioner was a tenant of the contesting respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or infirmity. 9. No other point has been urged. 10 .For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 11. After the order has been dictated, the petitioner through his counsel has given an undertaking that she would vacate the disputed premises within two months. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to vacate the disputed premises on or before 17th may, 2010 and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent landlord. She will also deposit the entire rent due till 17th of May, 2010 within three weeks in the court below which should be paid to the respondent landlord. In case of default, the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith.