Heard Sri M.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The respondent-landlord filed suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent etc. from the petitioner who was a tenant in the shop in dispute. The aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No.122 of 1999 was contested by petitioner. It appears that Trial Court by order dated 27.1.2003, on account of non compliance/ observance on the part of petitioner requirement of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. struck off his defence and thereafter the petitioner-tenant also did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. In the circumstances after recording evidence of landlord-respondent, Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 24.9.2004 and the said judgment has been confirmed by Revisional Court by dismissing petitioner's S.C.C. Revision No.83 of 2004 vide judgment dated 3.03.2005.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he disputed the rent but could not dispute this fact that against the evidence adduced by landlord, he did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. That being so, findings of fact recorded by Courts below concurrently cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to record warranting any in