Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord -respondent No. 3 Zahooruddin filed S.C.C. Suit No. 70 of 1989 against the tenant -petitioner before J.S.C.C. Aligarh for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The tenant in the said suit deposited the entire amount as required by section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and claimed exemption from eviction in terms of the said sub -section. According to said sub -section if on the first date of hearing entire rent due till then, interest on unpaid rent @ of 9% per annum and cost of the suit are deposited then Court may not pass decree for eviction. Trial Court held that the amount was deposited after the date of first hearing, hence tenant was not entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act. The suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed on 30.11.1991. Tenant -petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 46 of 1991 against the said judgment and decree. IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh through judgment and order dated 25.10.1993 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition. On the filing of the plaint summons was issued to the tenant fixing 14.11.1989, which was suddenly declared holiday and the matter was posted for 15.11.1989 on which date there was strike of the lawyers. The date was therefore adjourned to 1.1.1990. Meanwhile tenant deposited the amount on 22.12.1989. The Courts below took 15.11.1989 to be the first date of hearing. In my opinion both the Courts below were wrong in holding 15.11.1989 as the first date of hearing.
(2.) AFTER discussing five authorities of the Supreme Court, particularly the authority in Ashok Kumar v. Rishi Ram : 2002 (48) ALR 401 (SC) I have held in K.K. Gupta v. A.D.J., 2004 (57) ALR 776 that no date prior to the date of filing of written statement, if written statement is filed within the time granted by the Court, can be taken to be the date of first hearing. The Supreme Court in the said authorities has held that the date on which Court proposes to apply the mind and is in a position to apply the mind is the date of first hearing. In the aforesaid authority of Ashok Kumar on 20.5.1980 the date fixed in the suit, defendant sought for and was granted time to file written statement till 25.7.1980. On the said date (25.7.1980) also similar prayer was made by defendant and allowed by Court and suit was adjourned to 10.10.1980. The last date was taken by the Supreme Court to be date of first hearing even though Presiding Officer was not available on that date (tenant deposited the amount on 10.10.1980). In the instant case 14.11.1989 was declared holiday hence there was no question of application of mind on the said date. On 15.11.1989 Advocates were on strike, written statement was not on record, hence, Court was not in a position to apply the mind. Accordingly neither 14.11.1989 nor 15.11.1989 can be taken to be the date of first hearing. It has not been disputed by learned Counsel for the respondents -landlord that written statement was filed after 22.12.1989, the date on which the entire amount was deposited. Accordingly I hold that the tenant was fully entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Both the judgments and orders of the Courts below, decree of the Trial Court and order of the Revisional Court in respect of eviction are set aside. The suit for eviction is dismissed. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. : 2004 (54) ALR 177 : : 2004 (13) AIC 42 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. The existing rent of Rs. 45/ - per month for one room house situate in Aligarh City is highly inadequate. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from February, 2006 onward tenant -petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord -respondent @ Rs. 400/ - per month.;