- (1.) Order dated 02.12.2013 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 01.04.2009. 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 9 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 9 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.";