JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of orders dated 1.3.2011, 17.9.2010 and 18.5.2010 passed by respondent no. 2. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be a tenant of one room on ground floor on monthly rent of Rs.100/- in the house belonging to respondents no. 3 to 7 on monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The father of respondents no. 3 to 5 filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 1984 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad, for ejectment of the petitioner (defendant) as well as recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement which was decreed on 21.11.1984. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 96 of 1985 which was also dismissed on 20.02.1989 by IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5326 of 1989: Shri Narendra Singh Chauhan Vs. II Additional District Judge, Moradabad, in which initially ad interim order was granted by the Court and subsequently dismissed on 7.12.2009 by the High Court. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the respondents no. 3 to 5 had pleaded that building in dispute was constructed in the year 1977 clandestinely producing a map passed by prescribed authority but the room was never constructed on the first floor; that the map produced was confined to making construction on the first floor which was never constructed and he deliberately misled the court into believing that the accommodation in dispute on rent by the petitioner on the first floor has been constructed in the year 1977 whereas the true fact is that it was more than 12 years prior to it and the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable; that father of respondents no. 3 to 5 had failed to discharge the onus to prove that the construction was new and exempted from the operation of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972; that during examination before the trial court the father of respondents no. 3 to 5 had failed to discharge the onus to prove that the construction was new and exempted from the operation of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972; that during examination before the trial court the father of respondents no. 3 to 5 admitted that he acquired the house from his father who died 35 years ago and the building in question was purchased by him during his life time. 5. He further submits that during the course of hearing of the revision before the Court below the petitioner moved three applications supported by affidavits and made the following prayer:- (a) That the petitioner having come to know that the building in dispute is more than 34 years old and is not a new building within the meaning of section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he be permitted to amend the written statement and adduce additional evidence to prove that the building is not exempted from the operation of the Act applicable to the new constructions, the application was rejected by the him on inadequate grounds by his order dated 25.8.10. (b) That the petitioner moved another application with a prayer that a local inspection may be permitted through the Commissioner to prove that the building is an old one and is not covered by section 2(2) of the Act and the same was rejected on inadequate grounds. (c) That the petitioner moved third application that he be permitted to amend the written statement and adduce fresh evidence in as much as the building was hired by the petitioner for setting up an industry i.e. S.S.I. Unit and it was incumbent upon the father of respondents no. 3 to 5 to have given six months notice inasmuch as the present suit will not be maintainable, the application was rejected by the revisional authority on untenable grounds." 6. It is further urged by the petitioner that he wanted to prove by additional evidence that the building was old construction and was not exempted from operation of the Act applicable to new construction under Section 2 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, but the revisional authority has shut off the evidence of the petitioner in this regard which is the only question relevant for decision of the case. 7. In the meantime, the writ petition no. 7. In the meantime, the writ petition no. 5326 of 1989 filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 21.11.1984 and 20.2.1989 was dismissed by the Court on 7.12.2009. In the circumstances, the petitioner moved objection under Section 47 and 151 C.P.C. in Execution Case No. 22 of 1988 which is pending in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad, registered as Misc. Case No. 06 of 2010: Narendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Radhey Raman and others. Subsequently, Misc. Case No. 06 of 2010 was dismissed in default by order dated 18.5.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed Misc. Case No. 15 of 2010 for restoration of Misc. Case No. 06 of 2010. 8. It is stated that the application was moved by the petitioner on 25.5.2010 for adjournment of the case and for spot inspection and to ascertain that on the spot there is only single room in which the petitioner has installed the thread manufacturing machine. Misc. Case No. 15 of 2010 was dismissed on 17.9.2010 by the respondent no. 2. Hence the petitioner moved another application on 10.10.2010 under section 340 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad. 9. The petitioner claims that he was ill on 1.3.2011 when application dated 25.5.2010 moved by him for spot inspection was wrongly rejected by respondent no. 2. 10. According to the petitioner, Judge Small Causes Court, Moradabad has failed to get the house inspected on the application of the petitioner for ascertaining as to whether the room/accommodation in dispute is a single story or double story and that the orders dated 1.3.2011, 17.9.2010 and 18.5.2010 are bad in law and are liable to be quashed. He prays for quashing of the orders, aforesaid on the ground that respondent no. 2 has already fixed 18.3.2011 for further orders in Execution Case No. 22 of 1988. 11. On perusal of orders dated 17.9.2010, it appears that the petitioner had moved an application (paper no. 3-C) under section 151 CPC for restoration of Misc. Case No. 06 of 2010: Narendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Radhey Raman & others on the ground that he was suffering with viral fever on that date and could not appear before the Court. 11. On perusal of orders dated 17.9.2010, it appears that the petitioner had moved an application (paper no. 3-C) under section 151 CPC for restoration of Misc. Case No. 06 of 2010: Narendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Radhey Raman & others on the ground that he was suffering with viral fever on that date and could not appear before the Court. The Court considered the facts and concluded the case with the finding that the application has been filed only to prolong the proceedings in the case; that the petitioner has not filed any medical certificate that petitioner was suffering from viral fever on the date fixed, and that the petitioner had never appeared in the Court after filing Misc. Case No. 06 of 2010. 12. The Court recorded findings holding that in Execution Case No. 27 of 1988, Dakhal Parwana has already been issued and in fact the petitioner was present in the Court on 18.5.2010, but had deliberately not come inside the Court despite case being called out and that for the last 22 years he has been prolonging the litigation on applications with false assertions. The finding of the Court below in this regard is as under: ^^foi{kh dh vksj ls vkifRr 8 lh nkf[ky djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izk0 i= nwf"kr eukso`fRr ij vk/kkfjr gS vkSj izk0 i= btjk okn la[;k 22@88 jktdqekj cuke~ ujsUnz flag pkSgku esa dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh dks yfEcr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k gSA izk0 i= esa ok;jy Qhoj gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ esfMdy izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] izFke n`"V;k nf'kZr mDr dFku bl vk/kkj ij Hkh >wBs lkfcr gksrs gSa] izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag fofo/k okn la0 6@10 ;ksftr djus ds mijkUr dHkh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gqvkA U;k;ky; }kjk mls vusdksckj fof/k okn dks pykus gsrq funsZ'ku Hkh fd;k x;k ijUrq mldk ,d ek= mn~ns'; btjk la0 27@88 esa ijokuk n[ky tkjh gks pqdk gS] mDr dk;Zokgh dks yfEcr djus ds mn~ns'; ls izkFkhZ }kjk mDr izk0 i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh us vius vkifRr esa ;g dgk gS] izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku dHkh hkh 12-05-10 ls 19-05-10 rd ok;jy Qhoj ls ihfMr ugha jgk vfir fnukad 18-05-10 dks U;k;ky; ifjlj ds ckgj mifLFkr Fkk] tku cw>dj U;k;ky; esa vkokl yxus ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk rkfd eqdnesa dh dk;Zokgh dks Vkyk tk ldsA izkFkhZ dk ,d ek= mn~ns'; btjk dh dk;Zokgh dks foxr 22 o"kksZa ls >wBs dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij izk0 i= izLrqr djds Vkyus dk jgk gS rFk ikfjr fMdzh dks >wBs dFku fu"Qy djkuk pkgrk gSA tks izR;sd n'kk esa izk0 i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA - - - - - fofo/k okn 6@10 dks ns[kus ls fofnr gksrk gS fd izLrqr okn 16-02-10 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k tks ntZ jftLVj gqvk vkSj fuLrkj.k gsrq 05-03-2010 fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 05-03-10 dks izkFkhZ mifLFkr ugha jgkA fnukad 19-03-10 dks Hkh LFkxu izk0 i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj 02-04-2010 fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 02-04-10 esa foi{kh dh vksj ls vkifRr nkf[ky dj nh xbZA 09-04-10 dks izkFkhZ iqu% vuqifLFkr jgkA U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 16-04-10 fu;r dh xbZA fnukad 16-04-10 dks izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku dh vksj ls LFkxu izk0 i= izLrqr fd;k x;k tks U;k;ky; }kjk :0 150@& gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k x;k vkSj lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;kA fnukad 30-04-10 dks izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku iqu% LFkxu izk0 i= izLrqr fd;k x;k tks :0 500@& gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k x;kA fnukad 14-05-10 dks izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku }kjk LFkxu izk0i= izLrqr fd;k x;k tks U;k;ky; }kjk :0 500@& gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k x;k vkSj 18-05-10 fu;r dh xbZ vkSj 18-05-10 dks izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku vuqifLFkr jgk vkSj izkFkhZ dh vuqifLFkfr ds ifj.kkeLo:i U;k;ky; }kjk mDr izdh.kZ okn 6@10 [kkfjt fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izdh.kZ okn 6@10 dks ns[kus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd izLrqr okn esa izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku }kjk okn ds fuLrkj.k gsrq foyEc djrk jgk vkSj LFkxu izk0 i= gh izLrqr djrk jgkA blh i=koyh ds lkFk layXu btjk ua0 22 @88 layXu gSA bl i=koyh dks ns[kus ls fofnr gksrk gS fd fu.khZr +_.kh @ izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku }kjk vusdksa LFkxu izk0 i= izLrqr fd;s tkrs jgs gSa rFkk dqN vU; izdkj ds izk0 i= izLrqr fd;s tkrs jgs gSa tks U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr fd;s x;s rFkk bl okn dks ns[kus ls fofnr gksrk gS fd izLrqr izdj.k esa n[ky ijokuk Hkh tkjh fd;k tk pqdk FkkA vehu vk[;k Hkh vk pdh gSa bl okn esa izkFkhZ ;k rks vuqifLFkr jgk ;k mlds }kjk LFkxu izk0 i= izLrqr fd;s tkrs jgs gSaA izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku dk izLrqr oknksa esa okn foyEc djus dk vkpj.k ifjyf{kr gksrk gSA mijksDr foospukijkar U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij fudyrh gS fd izkFkhZ ujsUnz flag pkSgku us izLrqr fofo/k okn esa tks vuifLFkfr ds dkj.k n'kkZ;s gS] leqfpr izrhr ugha gksrs gSaA vr% izk0 i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k fofo/k okn la0 15@10 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS] vkifRr 8@lh fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSa i=koyh fu;ekuqlkj nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA g0 vLi"V ¼Jhefr fczts'k flag½ y?kqokn U;k;k/kh'k eqjknkckn fnukad 17-09-10 ** 14. By order dated 1.3.2011, the Court has disposed of applications (paper no. 129, 148-C and 152-C). Application (paper no. 129 was disposed of with a direction to Amin for delivery of possession by breaking the law. Application (paper no. 148-C) has already been decided in favour of decree holder. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, there does not appear to be any illegality or infirmity in the orders of the Court below as the Court below by a reasoned order has rejected the application of the petitioner who has failed to establish any case that he was suffering from viral fever on the date fixed and due to which he could not appear before the Court. The Court has also noticed that the petitioner was out side the Court when the case was called out, but deliberately he did not respond and the Court has rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner was delaying the litigation. 16. For all the reasons stated above, no interference is called for in the present case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.