Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2000 passed by the court below in SCC revision no. 28 of 1998 whereby and whereunder it has been held that the petitioner tenant is not entitled to to avail the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as the amount deposited by him is short by Rs. 237/-. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief. The respondent no. 3 herein, instituted, after giving notice determining the tenancy, SCC suit no. 39 of 1997 against the petitioner for recovery of rent, water tax and damages for use and occupation w.e.f. 14-4-1995 as also for ejectment from the room in dispute situate on the first floor of the house detailed at the foot of the plaint. The said suit was filed on the pleas inter alia that the defendant tenant is in arrears of rent for more than a period of four months and is thus liable for eviction under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was also disputed. The petitioner tenant also made deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act for relieving him from the eviction decree. The trial court framed as many as six issues. It was found by the trial court that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month. The notice determining the tenancy is valid and the petitioner is entitled to be relieved from the eviction decree as he has deposited the requisite amount under Section 20(4) of the Act, vide judgment and decree dated 20-5- 1998. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,821/- in compliance of the aforestated provision. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that the said amount is deficient by Rs. 237-22 paise. The trial court proceeded to decide the said issue on the basis that if there was some mistake and short fall in making the deposit, the deposit shall be treated as valid unless the short fall or the alleged mistake is intentional one. The matter was carried in revision before the revisional court. The revisional court, after rejecting the plea put forward by the petitioner tenant, held that looking to the quantum of entire amount due, the deficiency of Rs. 237.22 paise cannot be condoned or ignored. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that a sum of Rs. 5,821/- was deposited by the petitioner and that there was a short fall of Rs. 237.22 paise. However, he submits that the petitioner was and is prepared to deposit the balance amount. In this regard, an application was also filed before the revisional court but the same was wrongly rejected by it. Elaborating the arguments, he submits that the short fall is liable to be condoned. Reliance was placed by him on Mam Chand Pal Vs. Smt. Shanti Agarwal, 2002(1) ARC 370, a decision by the Apex Court. In this case it was held that while considering the import of Section 20(4) of the Act, it may have to be seen that the requirement of law is substantially and virtually stands satisfied. A highly technical view of the matter will have no place in construing compliance of such a provision. It has been added that it is not intended to lay down that non-compliance of any of the requirements of the provision in question is permissible. All the dues and amounts liable to be paid have undoubtedly to be paid or deposited on the date of first hearing but within that framework virtual and substantial compliance may suffice without sticking to mere technicalities of law. The other case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Shamsher Khan Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur and 2 others, 2005(1) ARC 747. In this case the tenant had deposited a sum of Rs. 9,520/-. The short fall was only Rs. 221/- which was less than 3% and was held negligible by the revisional court and the said order was affirmed by the High Court. While affirming the order, the High Court observed that it is not even a month's rent. Learned counsel for the respondent landlord, on the other hand, relied upon Umesh Chand Gandhi Vs. Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1994(1) ARC 167, a decision by the Apex Court wherein it has been held that theory of substantial compliance is not a compliance of Section 39 of the Act. But when there is a bonafide mistake in calculation, the burden is on the tenant to establish by adduction of evidence the bonafide in committing a mistake. Then, reliance was placed on Ajay Pal Singh and others Vs. Additional District Judge, Nainital and another, 1999(2) ARC 747 wherein it was held that Section 20(4) of the Act is for the benefit of tenant and in order to get its benefit he has to fulfill the conditions. If he has not deposited the entire rent. the tenant is not entitled to get its benefit. In this case, there was a short fall of Rs. 132/-. From the report, it does not appear what was the total amount which was deposited by the tenant. Legal maxim de minimis non curat lex means the law does not concern itself about the triffles. Explaining the said mistake, in Brooms Legal Maxims it has been said that court of justice generally do not take triffling and immaterial matters into account. Where triffling irregularities or even infractions of the strict letter of the law are brought under the notice of the Court, the maxim de minimis non curat lex is of frequent practical application. The said maxim was invoked by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Chand Gandhi, referred to above. More or less, same thing has been said by the Apex Court in the case of Mam Chandra Pal (supra). Invoking the said maxim, on the facts of the present case, it may be noticed that monthly rent is Rs. 150/-. The short fall towards monthly rent is more than a month's rent. Percentagewise it comes to more than 2% of the total amount deposited which cannot be covered by invoking maxim de minimis non curat lex. Except making a bald statement that it was due to calculation mistake, there is nothing on the record in support thereof. It may be remembered that by enacting Section 20(4), which is a beneficial piece of legislation, so far as the tenant is concerned, the Legislature has provided second opportunity to a tenant to get himself relieved by making the deposit of amount mentioned therein. In response to a notice demanding the arrears of rent, a tenant has opportunity to clear the arrears within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice to save himself from the eviction decree. It has been held that while protecting the interest of the tenant, certain limited right has been given to the landlord. A tenant is under obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act strictly if he wishes to take advantage of beneficial provision of the Act. In E. Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy (dead) by LRs. and others, (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 123, the Apex Court has held that consideration of equity is not applicable in the case of clear statutory provision while interpreting Section 8 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. A tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute and strict compliance with the procedure is necessary. In this connection, the following observation made by the Apex Court is apposite:- "5. Mr. Sampath, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant tenant had deposited the arrears of rent in court, it should be taken as compliance with Section 8 of the Act. THIS would mean there is no default on the part of tenant in payment of rent and therefore, no eviction order could have been passed against the appellant on that ground. According to the learned counsel, the court should not take a technical view of the matter and should appreciate that it was on account of refusal of the landlords to accept the rent sent by way of money orders that the tenant was driven to move the court for permission to deposit the arrears of rent. Since there is a substantial compliance with Section 8 inasmuch as the arrears of rent stand deposited in court, a strict or technical view ought not to have been taken by the High Court. We are unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel. The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters. The statute contains express provisions. It prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a precondition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. The tenant cannot straightway jump to the last step i.e. to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. We are fortified in this view by the decisions of this Court in Kuldeep Singh V. Ganpal Lal (1996) SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar V. J. Venkatarama Naidu (1996) 6 SCC 228." (Emphasis supplied) Viewed as above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. No other point was pressed. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. Time to vacate the premises in dispute is granted upto 31-8-2009 provided the petitioner files an undertaking on affidavit before the trial court within a period of one month that he will vacate the disputed premises and will handover its vacant peaceful possession to the respondent no. 3 landlord without inducting any person therein. The petitioner shall also deposit the entire arrears of rent upto 31-8-2009 with the trial court within aforesaid period of one month after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by him. In case of default in compliance of either of the conditions, stipulated above, the time granted under this judgment shall stand discharged and the respondent no. 3 landlord will be at liberty to put the decree for execution.;