SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. - (1.)Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/ tenant and Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent landlord/plaintiff.
Facts of the case:-

(2.)Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent plaintiff is the owner and the landlord of Bunglow No. 90, Civil Lines, Jhansi. In the said Bunglow, there is a house bearing new Municipal No. 1455 owned by the respondent-plaintiff in which the petitioner-defendant was tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 200.00. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner defendant defaulted in payment of rent since 1.7.2006 and as such he issued a notice dated 16.8.2008 to the petitioner-defendant/tenant demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner-defendant on 22.8.2008. However, the petitioner-defendant neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the tenanted house. Consequently, the respondent-plaintiff/landlord filed SCC Case No. 59 of 2008 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction of the petitioner-defendant from the disputed house and payment of arrears of rent of Rs. 5340.00 for the period 1.7.2006 to 21.9.2008 and thereafter damages @ Rs. 40/per day amounting Rs. 960/from the date of filing of the case. The petitioner-defendant filed his written statement on 26.3.2010 being paper No. 24C. In her written statement, the petitioner-defendant alleged that the rent for the period subsequent to 1.7.2006 was not accepted by the respondent-plaintiff and as such, she deposited the rent for the period 1.7.2006 to 31.8.2009 in Misc. Case No. 58 of 2009 under Sec. 30(1) of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Jhansi. As per facts noted in the impugned order dated 14.4.2011 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi, the petitioner-defendant had short deposited a sum of Rs. 758/- by the date of filing the written statement i.e. 26.3.2010. She deposited a sum of Rs. 800.00 by tender 33C dated 8.4.2010. The petitioner defendant took the stand before the Judge, Small Causes Court that the date of first hearing is 12.4.2010 by which date, the entire amount in terms of Sec. 20(4) of the Act or Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. stood deposited and therefore, she was entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Sec. 20(4) of the Act. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 758/- was found to be short deposit even after adjustment of the amount deposited by the petitioner-defendant under Sec. 30 of the Act. The Judge, Small Causes Court found that a sum of Rs. 7600+Rs.800+Rs.600 total Rs. 9,000.00 was illegally deposited by the petitioner-defendant under Sec. 30 of the Act and therefore, it was not liable to be adjusted for the purposes of Sec. 20(4) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rihanda Mal Sindhi Vs. District judge Jhansi, 2005 (1) ARC 110, the amount deposited by the petitioner defendant under Sec. 30 of the Act after issuance of a notice terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent, cannot be considered to the deposited under Sec. 20(4) of the Act. Following the aforesaid decision, the Issue No. 4 was decided against the petitioner-defendant by the impugned judgment dated 14.4.2011 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi. As a consequence of the answer to the Issue No. 4, the Issue No. 5 was answered against the petitioner-defendant and the suit was decreed. The SCC Revision No. 99 of 2011 filed by the petitioner-defendant to challenge the aforesaid judgment dated 14.4.2011, was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi by the judgment dated 1.2.2017. In view of the law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the Case of Mam Chand Pal Vs. Shanti Agarwal, 2002 (3) SCC 49, the revisional court held that the date of first hearing was 26.3.2010 on which date, the petitioner filed the written statement and on the said date, the entire amount of rent etc. was not deposited. It was further held that the amount deposited by the petitioner-defendant by tender 33C dated 8.4.2010 for Rs. 800.00 cannot be considered for the purposes of Sec. 20(4) of the Act. Consequently, the revision was dismissed. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the petitioner-defendant filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions:-

(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the phrase "first date of hearing" used in Sec. 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. has been interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mam Chand Pal Vs. Shanti Agarwal, 2002 (3) SCC 49 (para 4) in which, it has been held that first date of hearing would be the date on which the prescribed authority applies its mind to the facts of the case on the date fixed for hearing and not earlier on the date fixed for filing of the written statement. He, therefore, submits that since the petitioner-defendant has deposited the entire amount before 8.4.2010 and therefore, the date fixed for filing the written statement i.e. 26.3.2010 would not be the first date of hearing rather the first date of hearing would be 12.4.2010. He submits that after several dates were fixed for argument by the trial court, the effort of compromise was made but abruptly the trial court allowed the case by the impugned judgment dated 14.4.2011. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice, without giving effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-defendant.