Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is the tenant's writ petition against the order dated 12.08.1983 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) passed by the IInd Addl. District Judge, Meerut, allowing the revision and the suit filed by the landlord. FACTS Petitioner is a tenant of a residential house. Rate of rent of the house was Rs. 40/ - per month. Shri Shiv Dutta Sharma is the landlord. He initially filed a suit for arrears of rent. This was numbered as J.S.C.C. (Suit No. 410 of 1975); Shiv Dutta Sharma v. Mahesh Chandra Sharma. This suit was decreed ex -parte on 16.07.1975. The decree of the suit could not be executed. Shri Shiv Dutta Sharma filed another suit (J.S.C.C. Suit No. 244/77). In this suit the summons were issued and the date 03.08.1977 was fixed up for appearance and the final hearing in the matter. The tenant appeared and filed an application to get permission to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,250/ - as contemplated under Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act only). He also prayed that case be adjourned for filing written statement. His tender was passed and, thereafter, he deposited Rs. 2,250/ -. The tenant also filed a written statement on 10.8.1977. In this written statement, he took up a plea that he has given Rs. 2,500/ - in cash on 28.5.1975. This amount should also be adjusted towards the arrears of rent and Rs. 1184.70 paisa should also be adjusted.
(2.) THE trial Court by its order dated 3.2.1979 dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenant was always willing to deposit the entire amount as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the Act and this amount has been deposited, as such the tenant is entitled to its benefit. The landlord filed a revision. This revision has been allowed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut, (Respondent No. 1) by the order dated 12.8.1983. The Revisional Court held that the date 3.8.1977 was the first date of hearing and on that date the entire amount as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the Act was not deposited; the tenant is not entitled to its benefit. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition has been filed. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: I have heard Counsel for the parties.2 The following points arise for determination in the case.3 Ist Point - -first date of hearing? IInd Point - -entire amount as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the Act deposited on the first day of hearing? (iii) Was notice served? 1st Point - -FIRST DATE OF HEARING
(3.) THE Act prohibits the filing of suit for the eviction of a tenant except on the ground mentioned in Section 20(2) of the Act.4 Section 20(2)(a) of the Act permits the landlord to file for the eviction of a tenant if he is in arrears of rent for not less than four months. But Section 20(4) of the Act5 provides that if the tenant deposits the entire rent along with interest and the cost of the landlord in the suit then the decree for his eviction on this ground can not be passed. This has to be deposited in the Court on the first date of hearing. But what is the first date of hearing? This was subject matter of some debate before the Courts. The legislature inserted an explanation defining the word 'first date of hearing'. According to the explanation, it means the first date for any step or proceedings mentioned in the summons served on the tenant. The controversy even then did not end. The word 'first date of hearing' even after the explanation has been subject matter of discussion. Now it has been settled. 'First date of hearing' means the first date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind.6;