A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) This is a tenant's petition directed against two orders dated 3-5-1979 and 4-4-1978 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 decreeing the suit for the eviction of the petitioner from an accommodation of a godown.
(2.) These are the relevant facts. The respondent No. 3 as the landlord of the petitioner filed a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default. In the summons issued to the petitioner on 28-2-75, "16-4-75" was fixed for the final disposal of the suit. In response to the summons, the petitioner put in appearance and deposited certain sums of money in court along with an application (paper No. 7-C) purporting to be under S. 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972). It was prayed in the application that the petitioner having deposited the entire damages and costs etc. as contemplated under S. 20 (4). the suit of the respondent No. 3 be dismissed.
(3.) "14-5-75" was fixed for the disposal of the above application. The application was dismissed on 15-5-76 with the finding that the deposit made by the petitioner was insufficient, that is, it did not cover the entire amount which was required to be deposited under S. 20 (4) of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter, a few dates were fixed for the disposal of the suit on merits-On 31-5-76, the petitioner made another application (paper No. 14/C) to the effect that he bad deposited the remaining amount and that, therefore, the benefit of Section 20 (4) be given to him. Yet another application to the same effect was moved on 1-6-1976. These applications too were dismissed by the court by an order dated 14-7-76 on the ground that the entire amounts envisaged by sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, had not been deposited by the petitioner on the date of the first hearing of the suit. The petitioner filed a Revision against this order before the learned District Judge, who passed an order dated 15-6-76 (sic) upholding the order passed by the court of first instance, namely, the Judge Small Causes. The attempt of the petitioner to have the suit dismissed under Section 20 (4) of the Act having failed, the suit proceeded on merits and was decreed by the learned Judge Small Causes on 7-7-1977.;