Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is the writ petition against the order dated 5.11.1990 passed by the Revisional Court allowing the writ petition of the landlord and decreeing the suit for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent. Sri Jagdish Prasad Shah (the contesting respondent) filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds: of arrears of rent. This suit was decreed ex -parte and thereafter petitioner filed an application to set aside the order, which was allowed. The case was contested on merits thereafter. The trial Court by its order dated 6.5.1985 held that the petitioner has deposited some money under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court's Act and that should be taken into account while calculating the amount deposited by the tenants.
(2.) THE trial Court held that after taking into account the amount fell short by Rs. 132, but as it is a very small amount the tenant should be given benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act). The contesting respondent filed a revision, which was allowed. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner deposited some money, but it fell short by Rs. 132. The trial Court condoned it on the ground that it is a small amount of Rs. 132 but the revisional Court did not condone it for claiming benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act. The Section 20(4) of the Act is for benefit of the tenant and in order to get its benefit the tenant has to fulfil the conditions; he has not deposited the entire amount. The tenant is not entitled to its benefit.
(3.) THE writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed. However, the petitioner may not be evicted for a period of six months provided he deposits the entire decretal amount within one months from today and also file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the authority concerned within one month that he will peacefully handover the possession within six months and pay damages as assessed at the rate of rent for the period of his occupation. The amount if already deposited may be taken into account. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.;