Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 20.04.2010 and 05.05.2012 whereby the landlord's suit for eviction has been decreed and revision has been dismissed by Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were entitled to claim benefit of Section 20 sub-section (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") since on the first date of hearing the entire rent was deposited by tenant but he could not dispute that there was already a residential property purchased by petitioners' son and, therefore, under proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 20 both the courts below have found petitioners disentitle for the said benefit.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Girish Chandra Gupta and others v. State of U.P. And others, 2005 (3) ARC 475 stating that in absence of any pleadings, no one could have been permitted to lead evidence beyond pleadings and the court below, therefore, could not have looked into the sale deed whereby petitioners' son purchased a house at Azad Colony Nagar Palika No. 8/4415, Saharanpur relying whereupon both the courts below have disentitled any benefit to petitioners. He, however, could not dispute the factum that petitioners claimed compliance of Section 20(4) on the first date of hearing. In my view while considering the question, whether petitioners are entitled for benefit under Section 20(4), the courts below were entitled to look into the provision in its entirety.;