S.C.Verma - (1.) THE suit of the landlord respondent no. 3 for eviction of the petitioner and arrears of rent on the ground of default has been decreed by the Judge Small Causes Court by order dated 18-10-1985 and the revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act filed by the tenant has also been dismissed by order dated 12-2-1990. THE aforesaid orders are impugned in the present writ petition filed by the tenant.
(2.) THE only ground on which the impugned orders have been attacked is the non-consideration of the deposits made under section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE courts below have held that the alleged deposits made under section 20 (4) of the Act would not enure to the benefit of the tenant as they were not deposited on the first date of hearing. THE learned counsel for the petitioner straneously argued before me that the first date of hearing which has been mentioned in the summons can not be treated as the first date of hearing as the copy of the plaint was not served along with the summons According to the learned counsel, the dates were adjourned from time to time and it was only on 25-11-82 that the proceedings in the suit were conducted when the deposits under 20 (4) were made. THE court below committed manifest error of law in not treating 25-11-1982 as the date of first hearing. THE aforesaid contention, when tested on the facts of the present case can not bear the scrutiny. After the summons were served, the petitioner moved an application on 20-12- 1980 for adjournment of the case as he was not served with the copy of the plaint. THE application was allowed and it was directed that the defendant be served with the copy of the plaint and the case was adjourned to 5-3-1981. THE case was taken up on 6-3-1981 as it was a holiday on 5-3-1981. THE petitioner was present and he again prayed for time to file the written statement. THE case was adjourned to 28-5-1981. On this date again the petitioner prayed for adjournment as he wanted to inspect certain documents. THE written statement was thereafter filed on 2-9-1982. In my opinion, for the reasons stated above, the court below have rightly held that 25-11-1982 can not be treated as the first date of hearing when the deposits were made by the tenant. Even if the grievance of the petitioner is accepted that the date mentioned in the summons can not be the first date of hearing, there appears to be absolutely no justification for the tenant not to have deposited the rent on subssquent dates when the case whs adjourned at his instance as also on the date on which he filed the written statement, The argument of the petitioner that no proceedings in the suit were conducted on these dates can not be accepted. Learned counsel tor the respondent placed before me the law laid down in the case Jagannath v. Ram Chandra Srivastava, 1982 ARC 665 (DB) and Siya Ram v. Distt. Judge Kheri. 1984 AWC 169(FB) = 1984(1) ARC 410 (FB). The expression 'date of first hearing' would be the date fixed after the copy of the plaint was served on the defendant even though the same may have been adjourned. It will only be if the date adjourned due to the absence of the Presiding Officer or non- transaction of work by the Court that the date can not be treated as the date of first hearing. There appears to be no reason after the date was adjourned for non-service of copy of the plaint, the subsequent date or the subsequent dates being not treated as the date of first hearing of the suit. The tenant has to pay for the negligence and in case he chooses not to deposit the rent immediately after the summons are served on the date fixed, no benefit can be claimed under section 20 (4) of the Act. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;