Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -Heard Sri Prakash Gupta, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B. N. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, landlord, opposite parties.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. THE plaintiff contended that the defendant had not paid the rent and, therefore, was liable to be evicted from the premises in question. THE defendant resisted the suit and denied that he was in arrears of rent. However, the defendant, in order to avoid all controversy, took protection under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,886.69 paise towards arrears of rent, cost, etc. on 22.9.1978, praying that since he had deposited the entire rent, etc. on the first date of hearing, the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act should be given to him and he should be discharged from the liability of ejectment. THE court below rejected the application and decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears on the ground that the applicant had not deposited the amount on the first date of hearing and that the original tenant, having died after the determination of the tenancy and the statutory tenancy, not being heritable, consequently, the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act could not be passed on to the heirs of the tenant. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, the tenant filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and, upon a perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the trial court cannot be sustained. The revision is liable to be allowed.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire rent was deposited on 22nd September, 1978. This fact has been alleged in paragraph 7 of the affidavit accompanying the stay application. THE landlord, opp. party has not denied this fact in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit but disputed that the amount was not deposited on the first date of hearing. From the said averments, it is clear that the landlord, opp. party has not denied the factum of the deposit of the amount by the tenant before the court below. The question that remains to be answered is, whether the tenant had deposited the entire rent, etc., on the first date of hearing and whether he was entitled to be given the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The court below has given a specific finding that 8.12.1978 was the first date of hearing when the tenant was required to file his written statement. Prior to the first date, the tenant had deposited the amount on 22.9.1978. Consequently, the tenant was liable to be given the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.;