Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had earlier engaged Sri Mathura Pal, as his learned counsel for filing the present writ petition subsequently he died and the writ petition could not be filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge about his later on, he contacted the office of Sri Mathura Pal, and was intimated about his sad demise, thereafter, the petitioner engaged the present counsel for filing the present petition. It is thus contended that delay in filing of the present petition is not deliberate.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent-landlord of the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and the respondent-landlord filed a rent suit no. 50 of 2002 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent against which, the petitioner filed a written statement in which, after adducing of the evidence between the parties, the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2012 against the petitioner filed a S.C.C. Revision No. 14 of 2012 which too has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Aligarh.;