TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for ejectment and for realization of rent and damages alleging that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 1-1-1978 and that the water charges was also due against him from 1-10-1973. The respondents served a notice of demand for arrears of rent and also terminated the tenancy. In spite of the service of the notice, neither the arrears of rent was paid nor the petitioner vacated the shop in question.
(2.) THE Judge Small Cause Court issued summons fixing 26-5-1982. According to the petitioner, the said summons were duly received, but was not accompanied by a copy of the plaint nor any date was indicated in the summons for appearance. The petitioner, thereafter, made an enquiry and appeared on the next date i.e. 21-7-1982 and moved an application indicating that he was not served with a copy of the plaint nor any date was indicated in the summons and, therefore, he could not appear earlier. The application of the petitioner was allowed and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were directed to supply a copy of the plaint. The Court fixed 27-8-1982 for filing the written statement. On 27-8-82, the Presiding Officer was on leave and, accordingly, the case was adjourned for final disposal of 22-9-1982. On 22-9-82, the petitioner moved an application seeking further time to file the written statement, which was not opposed. The said application was allowed by the Court and the next date fixed was 22-10-82. The petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent, damages etc. as required under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 22-10-1982. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application stating therein that since he had deposited the entire amount of arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing, the benefit available under Section 20(4) of the Act should be given to him and that he should be relieved from the liability of being ejected from the premises in question and the suit should be dismissed. This application was rejected by the Judge Small Cause Court vide an order dated 26-8-1983. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the U.P. Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Revisional Court by judgment dated 12-7-84 rejected the revision.
(3.) BOTH the Courts-below held that the first date of hearing was 26-5-1982 which was the date fixed in the summons. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount on the first date of hearing, the benefit available under Section 20(4) could not be granted.;