O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to the tenanted accommodation House No. 149/160 Sadiyabad. Allahabad. This house was purchased by respondent No, 3 Ghalib Hussain on 10.5.1993 from the previous owners. On 20.5.1994 respondent No. 3 served a composite notice of demand and to quit. Arrears of rent for the period 10.5.1993 to 9.6.1994 were demanded. The present petitioner sent reply to the notice. The respondent No. 3 filed SCC Suit No. 118 of 1994 on 10.8.1994 for ejectment of the petitioner and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2.350 and mesne profits. After the suit was registered, the trial court issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance and to file written statement on 21.10.1994. Summons was served and the petitioner appeared before the trial court on the date fixed, i.e., 21.10.1994 and moved an application that he may be provided a copy of the plaint. An order was passed to furnish a copy of the plaint to the petitioner and 21.11.1994 was fixed for filing of the written statement and hearing. On that date, the petitioner moved an application for adjournment, which was allowed, and 10.1.1995 was fixed for final hearing. On that date, the petitioner moved an application for adjournment, which too was allowed, and 8.2.1995 was fixed for final hearing. Again on that date, the petitioner sought adjournment which was allowed and 15.3.1995 was fixed. The case was fixed for hearing on 2.5.1995 on which date again the petitioner sought adjournment in a casual manner. The trial court showed indulgence by adjourning the case to 12.5.1995. On that date, the lawyers abstained to work and consequently 3.8.1995 was fixed for final hearing. It was on that date that the petitioner moved an application for depositing the money with a view to avail benefit of the provision of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which runs as follows : "20 (4) : in any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause fa) of sub-section (2). If at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground : Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. Explanation -- For the purposes of this sub-section (a) the expression "first hearing" means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant ; (b) the expression "cost of the suit" includes one-half of the amount of counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit." A sum of Rs. 5.600 was deposited by the petitioner on 15.8.1995. The next date of hearing on the move of the petitioner was fixed on 22.8.1995. The suit was ultimately decided against the petitioner on 29.9.1996. It was held that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner preferred a Revision " No. 1248 of 1998 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act which was dismissed on 20.12.2000. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner tenant has come before this Court to challenge the finding that he is liable to be evicted on the ground of having committed default in payment of arrears of rent.
(2.) Counter. Rejoinder and Supplementary affidavits have been brought on record.
(3.) Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.F.A. Naqvi as well as Sri Jafar Iman Naqvi for respondent No. 3.;