M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition presents a piquant situation in as much as the tenant-petitioner who has insisted on appearing in person has not only miss-used the process of the Court but has refused to assist the Court. This has resulted into wastage of the precious time of the Court and the administration of justice has also suf-fered. The instant petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 03.04.1994 to 31.12.1994. The assertion made by the tenant-petitioner that there was a compromise entered into between the parties in the month of February, 1995 and the rent was paid in the presence of the brother of the landlord-respondent has been disbelieved as no evidence of fact of payment of rent has been tendered except the bald statement of the tenant-etitioner. It has also been found that the rate of rent has been Rs. 2,250/- per month and the premises were given on rent w.e.f. 01.11.1992. In March,1993 also an ejectment petition was filed against the tenant-petitioner where he tendered t