JUDGMENT

R.B. Misra, J. - The present revision is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Kanpur, dated 18th July, 1975. The applicant, Sri Nath Jha, was the tenant of the premises in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 68/- ever since 1966. The landlord filed two suits against the applicant one for the recovery of arrears of rent and the other for the recovery of the arrears of rent and also for ejectment of the applicant from the said premises.

2. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the accommodation in dispute was constructed in 1964, and that the defendant had fallen in arrears of rent from December, 1969, which he did not pay despite notice of demand. He terminated the tenancy and filed the suit for the ejectment of the defendant. The suit was contested by the applicant on the ground that the plaintiff himself was avoiding to receive the monthly rent tendered by him. Consequently, the defendant had to remit the rent by money-order, but the same was refused by the plaintiff without any reason. It was further contended that the accommodation in dispute was constructed in the year 1960 and as such the building was coves by the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), (for convenience the new rent Act). The defendant had already deposited Rs. 1,240/- on 14th July, 1970, and he had also paid a sum of Rs. 324/- towards taxes under a receipt dated 23rd March, 1971, and that the said two amounts covered the rent for the period from 1st September, 1970, till 31st July, 1972. It was further alleged that the defendant was prepared to tender the residue of the amount.

3. The pleadings of the parties give rise to a number of issues. But, it appears that the defendant did not turn up on the date fixed, and, therefore, the Court proceeded ex-parse and eventually decreed both the suits on the basis of evidence on the record.

4. The defendant submitted to the decree in the earlier suit, which was only for recovery of arrears of rent, but he sought to challenge the ex-parte decree in the suit giving rise to the present revision. He adopted two remedies : one by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other by filing a revision against the ex-parte decree. The revision against the ex-parte decree filed by the applicant was barred by time. Consequently, the revision application was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The District Judge after considering the affidavit and the other evidence produced by the applicant in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, declined to condone the delay and held that there was no sufficient cause preventing the applicant from attending the court on the date fixed. He accordingly dismissed the application under Section 5, and consequently the revision itself as time-barred, by his order dated 18th July, 1975. That order became final, as the applicant submitted to it.

5. The applicant, however, proceeded with the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was also supported by an affidavit and a medical certificate showing that the applicant was ill on the particular day and he was unable to attend the court. The other side also produced a medical certificate from the same doctor to show that the doctor was in the habit of giving wrong certificates for extraneous consideration. The court below after considering the evidence produced by the applicant and also by the opposite party, came to the conclusion that sufficient cause had not been made out for the applicant's absense on the date of hearing. Consequently, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed. The applicant has now come up in revision under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Shri N. S. Chaudhary, appearing for the applicant, contended that the applicant has been able to make out sufficient