K.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) HAVING felt that the question involved in the present case was of importance, Hon. S.D. Agarwala, J., referred this writ petition for decision by a larger Bench.
(2.) THE facts of this case, briefly stated, are these, Smt. Siddiqa Begum, respondent 3, filed a suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Rampur, for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the petitioner, on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The summons of the suit was served upon the petitioner on 6th July, 1978. The summons was not accompanied by a copy of the plaint. On Feb. 7, 1978. the petitioner appeared before the Judge Small Causes and pointed out to him that the summons served upon him did not accompany a copy of the plaint. Thereupon, the Court granted time up to 13th Feb, 1978, to the petitioner tenant to pay the arrears of rent, and fixed 14th Feb. 1978, for filing of the written statement. The petitioner-tenant deposited the arrears of rent and costs on 14th Feb. 1978. Having deposited the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from the petitioner together with interest thereon and costs of the suit in respect thereof, the petitioner claimed the benefit of sub-sec.(4) of Sec.20 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act XIII of 1972). The Judge Small Causes held that as the amount required by the aforesaid sub-sec.(4) of Sec.20 was not deposited on 7th Feb, 1978, which was the date for "first hearing" within the meaning of Explanation (a) to sub-sec.(4) of S.20, the petitioner was not entitled to the immunity from ejectment on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. In the revision preferred against the said judgment of the Judge Small Causes under Sec.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the judgment and decree of ejectment granted by the Judge Small Causes on the ground of default was maintained. Having felt aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court.
(3.) THE question that arises for our consideration in the present case is about the interpretation of Explanation (a) to sub-sec.(4) of S.20 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, which reads as under : "Explanation - For the purpose 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) ..........................." ;