S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for eviction filed by landlords respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against original tenant Chhotey Lal since deceased and survived by legal representative. Before filing suit notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent by the landlord to the tenant through registered post on 29.3.1979, which according to the postman was refused by the tenant on 30.3.1979. According to the landlord rent was Rs. 4.78 per month and according to the tenant it was only Rs. 3.12 per month. Landlord had complained that tenant had not paid rent since 1.1.64. Tenant denied receipt of notice and asserted that on 30.3.1979 when the notice was alleged to have been refused by him he was in Bhopal in connection with his treatment. The trial court held that notice was not refused by the tenant on the following grounds : (i) Registered notice could not be delivered on the next day; (ii) Tenant was away from Jhansi (where premises in dispute is situate) on 30.3.1979; (iii) Tenant had examined the Doctor who treated him at Bhopal at the relevant time; (iv) When tenant appeared in the suit on the first date after receiving the summons on the first attempt there was no reason for him to refuse the notice. The trial court also held that rate of rent Rs. 3.12 as asserted by tenant and not Rs. 4.78 as asserted by the landlord. The trial court also held that valid due (Marrya) rent had been deposited by the tenant on the first date of the hearing hence he was also entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No, 13 of 1972. The suit had been registered as Suit (S.C.C. Suit) No. 196 of 97 on the file of J.S.C.C./ Munslf Court No. 1, Jhansi. The trial court by order dated 3.9.1982 dismissed the suit for eviction. Suit for recovery of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1976 was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree landlord respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed revision being S.C.C. Revision No. 240 of 84 IInd A.D.J., Jhansi, allowed the revision on 11.2.1985 hence this writ petition.
(2.) The revisional court disagreed with the trial court on the question of benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In this regard. 1 find that finding of the trial court was erroneous in law and was rightly reversed by the revisional court. The trial court granted the benefit of the said provision to the tenant on the legal assumption that tenant was required to deposit only that much rent on the first date of hearing which was legally recoverable. The trial court was labouring under the misconception of law that tenant was not required to deposit time barred rent. It is settled that in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act it is essential for the tenant to deposit even the time barred rent.
(3.) The revisional court reversed the finding of the trial court in respect of service of notice and held that tenant refused to accept the notice.;