Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the Judgment of the trial court dated 23.11.1978, dismissing the suit filed by him. Against the Judgment of the trial court, the petitioner preferred a revision and the learned revisional court vide its order dated 14.2.1983. dismissed the revision against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 1974 on 9.2.1974, for recovery of Rs. 831.41p. as arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that respondent No. 3 was tenant in the disputed premises at the rate of Rs. 73.13p. per month. However, the rent being not paid since 1.9,1972, a notice dated 29.5.1973, was sent to him but inspite of the service of the notice, the rent was not paid and, therefore, he was liable for eviction on the ground mentioned under Section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-tenant filed written statement and claimed benefit of the deposit having been made by him under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The trial court having found that respondent No. 3 had deposited the entire arrears of rent on the first date of hearing along with interest and cost of the suit as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act, the suit for eviction was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. Respondent No. 1, dismissed the revision on 14.2.1983. These decisions have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri A. D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
(3.) The sole question involved in this petition is whether the respondent-tenant had deposited the amount on the date of first hearing as contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the Act. It may be necessary to indicate certain facts to decide this question. The respondent-tenant filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge transferred the suit vide its order dated 4.5.1974 to the 1st Additional Civil Judge. The file of the case was, however, wrongly, transferred to the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge. Dehradun. The Court issued summons, fixing 5.7.1974, for filing written-statement and 12.7.1974 for framing issues. Respondent No. 3 on 2.7.1974 (before the date fixed for filing written-statement) applied to the Court to permit him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1019.06p. claiming benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The Court allowed the application of respondent No. 3 and he deposited sum of Rs. 1019.06p. Respondent No. 3, further on 1.12.1975 deposited sum of Rs. 4.450. It appears an objection was taken that the Court had no Jurisdiction to decide the suit as the District Judge had transferred the case to the Ist Additional District Judge and not to the IInd Additional District Judge. On 3.5.1977, the District Judge transferred the case to the IInd Additional District Judge. Dehradun, where the case was already pending. The Court framed issues on 20.2.1978.;