Krishna Mohan Dayal, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed against the order of the revisional Court and the Court of Small Causes decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant fell in arrears of rent. Consequently a notice was issued to him for ejectment rent and damages, on 8th July, 1975. The notice was served on him on 9th July the next day. The notice was not complied with. Consequently the suit was filed on 11th October, 1976. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 411/ - as arrears of rent from 16 -10 -1973 to 8 -8 -1975, and damages amounting to Rs. 264/ - from 9th August 1975 to 10 -10 -1976. The suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes and the summon was issued to the defendant for filing the written statement fixing 21st December, 1977 for final disposal. The same day the defendant, in order to avail the benefit of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, filed a tender in the Court for Rs. 1341.20 covering arrears of rent, costs, damages and interest etc. The deposit under the tender was made on 23rd December, 1977. Thus the defendant claimed that he had deposited the entire amount of rent and damages etc. on 21 -12 -1977 and consequently he was relieved of the ejectment under sub -section (4) of Section 20. Both the Courts below have taken 30 -1 -1978 as the date of first hearing and tried to calculate the rent and interest etc. till that date. That could not be done. In sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 an Explanation was added by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976. By clause (a) of that Explanation the first hearing was defined. It reads as under: (a) The expression 'first hearing' means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendants...... The earlier controversy as to which would be the date of the first hearing of the suit was set at rest by the amendment. There could be no other date of first hearing except that mentioned in the summons served on the defendant. The trial Court has clearly given a finding that the summons was issued fixing 21 -12 -1977. Under the circumstances the deposit made on 21 -12 -1977 should have been taken as the deposit under sub -section (4) of Section 20. It should have been examined that the entire dues till that date were deposited or not. If the entire dues were deposited the defendant was relieved of the ejectment and the suit for arrears of rent alone could be decreed. As both the Courts below have fallen into an error of law in treating 30th January, 1979, as the date of first hearing the orders must be quashed.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the amount of Rs. 1341/ - was sufficient to cover the costs of the suit as contemplated by the clause (b) of the Explanation added to sub -section (4) of Section 20 and the entire rent, damages and interest till that date. The requires calculation. I asked the learned counsel for the parties to make the calculations and let me know the real position. The learned counsel, however, showed their inability to do so. Under the circumstances the learned counsel agreed that the calculation about the dues on that date may be made by the revisional Court itself and the orders may be passed accordingly. In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant is quashed. The case is sent down to the revisional Court, respondent No. 1, for calculating the amount due on the date of first deposit as indicated above and passing necessary orders accordingly. The parties are directed to bear their own costs of this position.;