Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondents.
(2.) It is submitted that once the petitioners have deposited entire rent and other dues as contemplated under Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), the court below ought not to have passed a decree for ejectment merely for the reason that regular monthly rent was not paid by tenant regularly within the prescribed time.
(3.) A perusal of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 shows that it has used the word "may" enabling the court that in its discretion and in given circumstances, decree of ejectment may not be passed, if, the defaulted tenant has paid dues, as mentioned in Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 on the first date of hearing of suit but the tenant thereafter has continued to commit default in payment of monthly rent and has violated requirement of Order 15, Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. On this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that authorities and precedents are otherwise and various authorities cited and referred to in the Revisional Court's judgment actually operate against him.;