VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.)THIS petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 18.08.1983, 16.10.1982, 16.04.1982 and 07.05.1981 passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, whereby the application under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short referred to as the CPC), of landlord respondent. No. 3 and the application of the tenant petitioner under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were decided against the tenant and in favour of the landlord, the revision against the same was dismissed and thereafter, the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed on merits and the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short referred to as the 1887 Act) against the same was dismissed.
(2.)THE dispute relates to ground floor portion of House No. 227, Block No. 3 Govind Nagar, Kanpur in which the petitioner is tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 42/- per month and the respondent No. 3 Smt. Kamla Rani is the landlady. The tenant was in arrears of rent from February, 1976. The landlady gave a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in August, 1978 and when the tenant did not respond nor paid the rent, Small Causes Suit No. 1546 of 1978 was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. In the said suit which was presented on 16.11.1978 notices were issued for 15.02.1979 and, thereafter, under orders of the Court registered notice were directed to be issued and upon steps being taken summons were issued by both ways fixing 15.05.1979. The tenant appeared through counsel on 15.05.1979 but did not make any deposit nor did he apply for making deposit and only request made was to grant time to file written statement. The case was adjourned for 16.08.1979. In between on 03.08.1979 the tenant/petitioner filed an application that he wants to deposit the entire rent due along with costs, court fees and counsel's fees unconditionally in order to seek benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The tenant petitioner further on 06.08.1979 filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 supported by an affidavit to condone the delay in filing the application for making deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act. The ground taken for the delay caused was that even though he had instructed his counsel on 15.05.1979 to make the deposit and in that respect application was also prepared by the counsel but the clerk of the counsel instead of filing application for making for deposit filed an application seeking time to file written statement. Under orders of the Trial Court without prejudice to right of the parties the tenant deposited an amount of Rs. 1276.34, details of which are given in paragraph 7 of the writ petition and is reproduced below :
Rent from 01.02.1976 to 28.02.1977 Rs. 546.00 Rent from 1.2.79 to 31.7.79 Rs. 252.00 Costs Rs. 349.50 Interest Rs. 43.84 Lawyer's fee Rs. 85.00

Thereafter, two applications were filed; one application was filed by the landlady/plaintiff for a direction to strike off the defence of the defendant/tenant under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, on the ground that he had not made the deposit on the first date of hearing; the second application was filed by the tenant-defendant claiming benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act as he had made the entire deposits as claimed. Both these applications were taken up together by the Trial Court and vide order dated 07.05.1981 it allowed the application of the landlady and struck off the defence of the tenant/defendant under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, and at the (same) time rejected the application of the tenant claiming benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, holding that the tenant had not made the deposit on the first date of hearing as required. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.1981 the tenant preferred a revision registered as SCC Revision No. 204 of 1981. The said revision was dismissed by the 7th Additional District Judge Kanpur vide order dated 16.04.1982 although on the ground of limitation being barred by time.

(3.)THE Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment dated 16.10.1982 against which the tenant petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the 1887 Act which was registered as SCC Revision No. 365 of 1982. The said revision was also dismissed vide judgment dated 18.08.1982. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present writ petition has been filed in which all the four orders have been challenged.