R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) IN this tenants petition the only question that arises for consideration is if the Courts below are justified in refusing to extend the benefit of Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the Act XIII of 1972. It is not disputed that the first date of hearing was 17th March, 1977. Summons had also been served on Petitioner. But 17th March to 21st March were declared holidays due to elections. On re -opening of Court the case was fixed for 23rd May, 1977. On this day the entire amount as required Under Section 20(4) was deposited. The courts below held that as Petitioner did not deposit the amount on 22nd March, 1977 the date when the case was taken up after election holidays it was not a deposit within the meaning of Sub -section (4) of Section 20.
(2.) IN taking this view the courts below committed manifest error of law. Courts being closed due of election holidays on 17th March, 1977 the first date of hearing stood automatically cancelled. Taking up the case after re -opening for fixing date could not be deemed to be first date of hearing as the expression according to Explanation (1) to Sub -section (4) of Section 20, means the first date for any step or proceedings mentioned in the summons served on the Defendant. Since no step or proceeding should take place on 17th March, 1977, the date mentioned in the summons, due to holiday, it stood extended to next date fixed by the Court, namely, 23rd May, 1977. Learned Counsel for opposite party urged that as the case was taken up on 22nd March, 1977 and the Petitioner was present he should have made the deposit on that date as whatever could have been done on 17th March, 1977 could be done on 22nd March, 1977. Reliance was placed on Section 10 of General Clauses Act which provides for computation of time. It was urged that if Petitioner would have deposited the amount on 22nd March, 1977 then only he could get the benefit of Section 20(4). The submission appears to be devoid of any substance. Section 10 of General Clauses Act is an enabling provision which deems as an act or proceeding to be done in time if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office opens after holiday. As the heading of Section itself indicates the provision is for computation of time. For instance if limitation of an appeal is expiring on Sunday but it is filed on Monday then by operation of Section 10 it is deemed to have been done within time. It cannot apply to cancellation of a date fixed for hearing. Once the date was cancelled the Court had to fix a date for any step or proceeding in the case. And it is that date which could be deemed to be date of first hearing. Since on 22nd March, the Court only fixed the date it could not be deemed to be a date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons. Presence or absence of Petitioner was irrelevant. Moreover Sub -section (4) of Section 2 having been enacted for benefit of tenant it should be construed liberally in his favor. Similar view was taken in writ petition No. 1809 of 1978 Gulab Singh v. Smt. Dhanno Devi, decided on 18th March, 1980. Since there was no other dispute the orders passed by the two Court below cannot be maintained. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the two courts below decreeing the suit for adjustment of Petitioner is quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs.;