Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 26th April, 1991 and 3rd December, 1996, passed by respondent Nos. 2 and Irrespectively, Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition.
(2.) Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri B.D. Mandhyan representing the respondents.
(3.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-tenant, who had defaulted in paying the rent, has not deposited the amount, which he ought to have been deposited in order to take benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the pretext that first date of hearing was 4th July, 1979 and not 23rd May, 1979. Both the Court below have harboured under misconception with the question as to what would be the first date of hearing, which had already adjudicated upon between the parties in earlier Revision No. 46 of 1980, wherein the Revisional Court has observed that the first date of hearing would be 23rd May, 1979 and not 4th July, 1979. This order of the Revisional Court dated 14th November, 1983 passed in Civil Revision No. 46 of 1980 has not been challenged by the petitioner, thus, it became final between the parties. In this view of the matter, the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has deposited the entire money treating 4th July, 1979 to be the first date of hearing, is not available to be argued in order to take benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The other points are already covered by the finding of fact by both the Courts and have rightly dealt with by both the Courts below. This being a finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;