- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the concurrent judgment and orders dated 28.2.2011 passed by the District Judge, Etah in Revision No. 14 of 2008, Abdul Rashid v. Smt. Vidya Devi, and 7.4.2008 passed by Judge Small Cause/Civil Judge (S. D.), Etah in Small Causes Suit No. 7 of 1996, Smt. Vidhya Devi v. Abdul Rashid. Brief facts of the case are as follows: A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed by order dated 7.4.2008. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 7.4.2008 a revision was filed which was registered as Revision No. 14 of 2008. The said revision was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.2.2011. Hence the present revision.
(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(3.) The Courts below on the basis of evidence on record particularly the report of the hand-writing expert have held that an agreement with regard to enhancement of rent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- was executed between the parties in the year 1994, as such, the petitioner was liable to pay enhanced rent of Rs. 500/- per month. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a compromise dated 23.1.2011 was executed between the parties during the pendency of the revision and the said compromise was filed before the revisional Court. In reply to this, learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the order dated 29.1.2011 passed by the revisional Court (certified copy of the said order was placed before me) wherein the revisional Court has specifically observed that the petitioner had made all efforts to delay the proceedings of the case despite the specific order of High Court to decide the Revision No. 14 of 2008 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.;