Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. Heard petitioners' counsel, Sri Rajesh Tandon and Sri M.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for landlord - -Respondent No. 3.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition whereby the decree of ejectment passed by Small Cause Court and affirmed by the revisional Court has been challenged. Suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed and decree of eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent. A clear finding of fact has been recorded by the trial Court that rent was due from 27.6.1982 from the tenant as claimed by the plaintiff -respondent and the tenant committed default in payment of the same because he failed to establish that rent upto 31.5.1983 had been paid by him to the landlord. While recording the said finding it has been concluded by the Courts below that the alleged rent receipts filed by the tenant -defendant for showing payment of rent in the year 1983 have been forged by interpolating the dates of their issue and this conclusion is based on consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence including the counter -foils of the original rent receipts produced by the landlord. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that assuming for the sake of argument that the defendant -tenant failed to establish payment of rent through rent receipts to the landlord in the year 1983, he should have been still extended benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act because he had deposited rent under Section 30(1) of the Act and also a sum of Rs. 378.00 on the first date of hearing and the total amount so deposited was far more than the amount required to be deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act. Through supplementary affidavit details of various deposits made from time to time have been given. In paragraph 4 thereof it is stated that according to the petitioners a total sum of Rs. 1,546.72 was required to be deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act to relieve the defendant from his liability of eviction. In paragraph 6, details of the amount deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act have been given. Deposits shown at serial numbers 3, 5 and 6 related to a period after the service of notice. As per the findings recorded by the Courts below, on the date of service of notice of demand rent was due from the tenant from 27.6.1982. Even if the amount deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act shown at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (totaling Rs. 210) is taken into account as a deemed payment of rent to the landlord by virtue of the provisions of sub -section (6) of Section 30 of the Act, still rent for more than four months was due on the date of service of notice which was not paid by the tenant despite service of notice and therefore, the finding of the Courts below that the tenant committed default in payment of rent is not vitiated.
(3.) SO far as question of extending benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act is concerned, there can be no dispute that the amount already deposited by the tenant under Section 30(1) of the Act before the filing of the suit is liable to adjustment while making compliance of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act and if it is found that the amount deposited under the said provisions and the one deposited in the court on the first date of hearing exceeds the amount required to be deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act, benefit of Section 20(4) cannot be denied to the tenant. However in the present case this Court finds that even as per the own chart furnished by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit that benefit cannot be extended to them. According to the supplementary affidavit as per the requirement of Section 20(4) a total sum of Rs. 1,546.72 was to be deposited on or before the date of first hearing. Under Section 30(1) of the Act a sum of Rs. 1,344.00 stood deposited before the first date of hearing and a further sum of Rs. 378.00 was deposited on 13.11.1984 i.e. the first date of hearing. The payment of the amount alleged to have been made to the landlord personally by the tenant through rent receipts as shown in the aforesaid chart has been disbelieved by both the courts below, as already pointed out above therefore, that alleged payment cannot be included while considering the question of compliance of Section 20(4) of the Act. Thus even according to the own showing of the petitioners there was a great shortage in the amount which was required to be deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act and no benefit can be availed of by the petitioners and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act must be rejected.;