Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – Order dated 2.12.2013 passed on the order sheet of this writ petition is quoted below: “Heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Srivastava learned Counsel on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5. Before start of the argument the Court enquired from learned Counsel for the contesting respondents as to whether he wanted to argue the writ petition without filing counter-affidavit or wanted time to file counter-affidavit After some hesitation, learned Counsel stated that he would prefer to argue without filing counter-affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the notice. Judgment reserved. On inquiry from Court learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that in case petition was decided in favour of the petitioner, petitioner was ready to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent which might be fixed by the Court. Until delivery of judgment petitioner shall not be evicted.” 2. This is tenant’s writ petition, arising out of suit for eviction instituted by landlords opposite parties 3 to 5 against her in the form of S.C.C. Suit (Rent Control) No. 10 of 2005. Eviction was sought on the ground of default and decree for recovery of arrears of rent was also prayed for. The suit for eviction and arrears of rent from January, 2002 was decreed by the J.S.C.C./Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur on 1.4.2009. Against the said judgment and decree petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 102 of 2009. A.D.J. Court No. 7 dismissed the revision on 3.10.2011, hence this writ petition. 3. One of the disputes was as to whether rate of rent was Rs. 225 per month as asserted by the tenant or Rs. 325 per month as asserted by the landlords. The other was whether water tax was included in the rent or it was payable over and above the rent. The third dispute was as to whether suit was barred by provision of Order IX Rule 9, C.P.C. or not as earlier also landlords had filed eviction suit against the tenant in the form of Suit No. 30 of 1992 which was dismissed in default. The third dispute was as to whether suit was barred by provision of Order IX Rule 9, C.P.C. or not as earlier also landlords had filed eviction suit against the tenant in the form of Suit No. 30 of 1992 which was dismissed in default. In the judgment of lower Revisional Court it was mentioned at one place that” the main and sole ground of the revisionist is that the learned Court below has interpreted the law of Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. against the settled principle of law.” and at another place as follows; “The revisionist has neither raised any other ground or legal error in the impugned judgment and order.” 4. In both the suits default was alleged from October 1990. In the earlier suit recovery of rent from October, 1990 till January, 1992 was sought. 5. Earlier suit was dismissed in default on 9.5.1995. In the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition filed on 4.4.2005, rent from January, 2002 to December, 2004 was claimed. However it was stated that the rent was due w.e.f. October, 1990 but as it had become time barred hence relief in respect there of was not being asked for. 6. Before filing the suit of 2005 notice was given by the landlord to the tenant. Ground for eviction (cause of action) in the earlier suit of 1992 was default in payment of rent till then. Ground of default (cause of action) in the subsequent suit of 2005 giving rise to the instant writ petition was default in payment of rent till then, particularly from January 2002 to December, 2004. Accordingly, causes of action in both the suits were quite different. Even if earlier suit had been dismissed either on the ground that tenant was not defaulter or on the ground that tenant had deposited the entire rent etc on the first date of hearing still second suit on the ground of subsequent default would have been maintainable. Accordingly I do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the lower Revisional Court holding that the finding of the J.S.C.C. that subsequent suit was not barred by Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. was correct in law. 7. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that other points were also argued before the lower Revisional Court and it had wrongly mentioned that no other point was argued. 7. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that other points were also argued before the lower Revisional Court and it had wrongly mentioned that no other point was argued. This argument cannot be considered by this Court. Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 , has held that the observation of a Court regarding something which happened before it cannot be questioned before higher Court and for that application must be filed before the same Court. 8. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file application before the lower Revisional Court stating that other points were also argued before it. If the lower Revisional Court accepts the contention of the petitioner then revision shall be decided again by the lower Revisional Court. However the question of bar under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. shall not be reopened. 9. The application may be filed within two months. For two months petitioner shall not be evicted. If the application as aforesaid is filed within two months then until decision of the application/revision, petitioner shall not be evicted. However, with effect from February, 2014 onward petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord respondent at the rate of Rs. 1200 per month. 10. Writ petition is disposed of. Petition Disposed Of. ____________