Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43840 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 4 of 2022 Revisionist :- Amit Mishra Opposite Party :- University Book Depot Through Virendra Vikram Singh And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Adnan Ahmad Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material available on record. None appears for the respondents despite service of notice. 2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 06, Unnao in S.C.C. Suit No. 02 of 2006. 3. The facts in brief are that the revisionist had filed S.C.C. Suit No. 40 of 2006 (later on numbered as 02 of 2006) for terminating the tenancy. The notices were served prior to filing of the suit. It was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month, which was not being paid. It was further stated that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 375/- per month later and there was a default for the period of March, 1998 to July, 2005. Despite service the tenants/defendants did not appear in the said suit and the suit proceeded ex-parte on 04.08.2006. When the matter was fixed for ex-parte arguments, an application was moved by the tenant on 18.08.2006 seeking recall of the order dated 04.08.2006, which was rejected and ultimately the suit was decreed on 18.08.2006. 4. It is stated that the respondent moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on 04.09.2006 without complying with the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (in short P.S.C.C. Act). During the pendency of the said application, the tenant moved an application for depositing the security for complying with the provisions of Section 17 of P.S.C.C. Act, which was rejected on 04.09.2006 and, thereafter, on 25.11.2006, the tenant moved an application for depositing the amount for complying with the provisions of Section 17 of P.S.C.C. Act. The said amount was insufficient in terms of the prescriptions contained under Section 17 of P.S.C.C. Act, as such another application was moved for depositing of the further amount to cure the deficit of the quantum of deposit. 5. Subsequently, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. came to be allowed and the ex parte decree was set-aside. Thereafter, the tenants filed a written statement admitting the relationship of the landlord-tenant, he disputed that the amount of rent of Rs. 375/- per month. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 16.12.2008. The rent was accepted as Rs. 100/- and the finding with regard to default was recorded and the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was denied to the tenant. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 16.12.2008, the respondent approach this Court for filing a Civil Revision No. 10 of 2009, subsequently, vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2020, the matter was remanded for considering and deciding the issue as to whether the tenant was entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On remand, the SCC Court framed issues and decided the issue giving the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to the tenant in view of the deposits made under Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Act. 7. The main contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that for claiming the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is incumbent that the entire amount has to be paid by the plaintiff with the suit unconditionally along with the interest @ 9 % on the date of first hearing. The only benefit that can be claimed by the tenant is any valid deposit made under Section 30 (1) of Act No. 13 of 1972. He argues that the amount deposited in furtherance of the mandate of Section 17 of the Act, cannot be termed as the amount which are required to be deposited under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which according to the counsel for the revisionist has been ignored by the S.C.C. Court. 8. Considering the mandate of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which is reproduced hereunder:- "Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) provides a way for tenants to avoid eviction in suits based on rent defaults. If a tenant pays the full rent and damages (calculated at the same rate as rent) along with 9% interest and the landlord's costs, before or on the first hearing date, the court may relieve the tenant of eviction liability. This relief is not available if the tenant or a family member has acquired a residential building in the same locality." 9. On a plain reading of the said provision for claiming the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is incumbent that the entire amount, as claimed in the suit have to be deposited before the first date of hearing along with the interest and the cost of the suit. In the absence of such deposit on the first date of hearing, the benefit cannot be claimed by the tenant. The amount deposited under Section 17 of the Act cannot give the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, to that extent the findings recorded by the S.C.C. is not justified and is quashed. 10. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the decree of ejectment as well as arrears of rent is decreed in favour of the revisionist. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench