- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 22-4-1988 passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing the revision filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 in the suit filed for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the ground of default. THE trial Court dismissed the suit for eject ment. THE plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed Civil Revision No. 24 of 1987. THE revision has been allowed by the order dated 22-4-1988 which is under challenge in this writ petition. Ave heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. One of the main controversy was whether the deposit made by the petitioner was valid and he was entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In Advaita Nand v. Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut and others, 1995 (26) ALR 71 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the date of first hearing shall be the date when the Court proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in con troversy. On perusal of the impugned order, this aspect requires reconsideration in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. I do not propose to express my opinion on merit as to what would the date of first hearing as it requires investigation of the facts on record.
(3.) IN view of the above, the impugned order dated 22-4-1988 passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1, or where the case is transferred, is directed to decide the revision afresh keeping in view the proposition laid down in the case referred to above by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The revision shall be decided within two months from the dated of production of a certified copy of this' order by either of the parties before the Court concerned. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;