IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 223 of 2002 (M/S) Chandan Singh S/o Karam Singh ..……… Petitioner. Versus District Judge and others ……… Respondents Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddartha Sah, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri K.N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddartha Sah, the learned counsel for the respondents. A suit for arrears of rent and eviction was instituted by the landlord alleging that the rent for the period January, 1990 to November, 1992 @ 500/- was not paid. The defendant/tenant resisted the suit and submitted that the rate of rent was Rs.200/- per month and that he had deposited the rent for the period January, 1990 to February, 1993 @ 500/- amounting to Rs. 19,000/- on 17th August, 1995 and deposited another sum of Rs. 15,500/- for the period March, 1993 to September, 1995 on 5th September, 1995. The trial court, after considering the matter, recorded a finding that the rent was Rs.500/- per month and further held that the tenant had not deposited the cost, interest, etc as required u/S 20 sub-clause (4) and, consequently, the benefit could not be extended to the tenant. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit for eviction. The tenant, being aggrieved, filed a revision u/S 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act which was also dismissed. The Revisional Court arrived at the same finding and upheld the order of the trial court. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court did not extent the benefit of Section 20 sub-clause (4) to the tenant inspite of the fact that the petitioner deposited the entire rent, etc. on the first day of the hearing. The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly two sums were deposited, i.e. 19,000/- and Rs. 15,500/- and that the Court below had only considered the deposit of Rs. 19,000/- and had not considered the deposit of Rs. 15,500/-. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally bereft of merit. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court as well as of the revisional court indicates that the Court below considered the question as to whether the petitioner had made the deposit of rent, damages, etc on the first day of hearing and concluded that the petitioner had only deposited the basic rent of Rs. 500/- per month and had not deposited the damages, interest, cost of litigation, etc. which is also required to be deposited on or before the first day of hearing. Since the same was not done, the Court did not grant the benefit of Section 20 sub-clause (4) to the petitioner/tenant. In my opinion, the findings arrived at by the Court below were perfectly justified and correct which requires no interference in a writ jurisdiction. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deposit of Rs. 15,500/- was not considered while considering the application u/S 20 sub-cluse (4) is again patently misconceived. A perusal of the challan indicates that the deposit of Rs. 15,500/- was for the period March, 1993 to September, 1995 which period was subsequent to the filing of the suit and which 3 period was not required to be considered u/S 20 sub-Clause (4) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 12.07.2010 Shiv