Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 2 - Nand Kishore filed SCC suit No. 47 of 1979 against tenant petitioner before JSCC/Munsif, Baghpat District Meerut (at that time Baghpat was included in District Meerut). The eviction was sought on the ground of default as provided under section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The JSCC granted the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act to the tenant holding that on the first date of hearing tenant had deposited the entire amount of rent, cost of the suit and interest. The suit was accordingly dismissed on 16.12.1982. Against the said judgment and decree landlord-respondent No. 2 filed SCC Revision No. 60 of 1983. IIIrd A.D.J., Meerut allowed the revision on 8.4.1985, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit of landlord-respondent No. 2 for eviction hence this writ petition by the tenant. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 landlord has argued that petitioner tenant had got his own house in the same municipality (i.e. of Baraut) where property in dispute is situate hence by virtue of proviso to section 20(4) tenant was not entitled to the benefit of the said sub-section. This contention was rejected by both the Courts below. Trial Court held that landlord could not prove that the house of the tenant was situate within the municipality of Baraut. Revisional Court held that the area where house of the tenant was situate, was included in the limits of municipal board of Baraut in the year 1983-84 hence the date on which the deposit was made and protection of section 20(4) was sought i.e. 1.1.1981 tenant was not having any house in the same municipality where house in dispute is situate hence the aforesaid proviso was not attracted. In my opinion the view of the Revisional Court is perfectly legal.
(2.) There is no dispute that on 1.1.1981 tenant had made complete deposit as required by section 20(4) of the Act. The Trial Court held that the said deposit was on or before the first date of hearing hence tenant was entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act. The Revisional Court differed with the Trial Court, Revisional Court held that:- "Summons were issued on 18.10.1980 but the case was taken up on 21.10.1980 as the Court had remained closed on 19th and 20th. On that day nothing was done and the case was adjourned to 20.12.1980. On 20.12.1980 the case was adjourned for want of time. On the margin of the order sheet it is also stated that a tender for Rs. 400/- was presented by the defendants. It is undisputed that the deposit of the entire rent and cost etc. was made by him on 1.1.1981. From these facts it is clear that the deposit was not made on the first date of hearing mentioned in the summons."
(3.) Written statement was filed on 28.8.1981. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is copy of the written statement. Naturally written statement must have been filed after grant of time for the same by the Trial Court. After discussing five authorities of the Supreme Court particularly Ashok Kumar v. Rishi Ram, 2002 (48) ALR 401 (SC), I have held in K.K. Gupta v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 659, that no date prior to the date of filing of written statement can be first date of hearing if written statement is filed with the permission of the Court (i.e. on time being granted by the Court for the said purpose).;