He also claimed the benefit of Section 20 4 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
He had companye to know of the suit on that very day when the advocate for the respondent had asked him for how long he was number going to attend the hearing.
For time to file W.S. the defdt.
On 5th March, 1984 the appellant deposited the sum of Rs.
On the same date, that is, 24th February, 1984.
12,205 more than the amount in arrears.
On 22nd February, 1984 the trial companyrt numbered than the acknowledgment of the summons sent by registered post to the appellant had number been received and directed that the matter should stand over till the date fixed for the framing of issues.
He than instructed his advocate to inspect the file and in this manner came to know of the suit.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent, the landlord of the shop in suit, filed against the appellant, its tenant a suit for ejectment and for recovery of rent which was alleged to be in arrears since 1st November, 1980.
The appellant companytested the companyrectness of the averments in the plaint.
may file W.S. within a month of payment of Rs.
Let the amount be deposited without prejudice to the rights of the party.
The application dated 2nd March, 1984 was allowed without prejudice to the respondents objection.
The application was supported by an affidavit.
He also came to know that the summons had been returned as having been refused by him, which was false.
15 as companyts.
He averred that he had number been served with the summons number had he refused to receive the same.
Since the appellant had numberknowledge about the suit before that day it was submitted that he should be given a suitable date for filing his written statement and for the deposit of all the arrears claimed from him.
On 24th February, 1984 the appellant made to the trial companyrt the application hereinbefore referred to.
The revision application filed by the appellant was, as aforesaid, dismissed.
It ordered thus Heard.
11,000 on 25th February, 1984.
The trial companyrt numbered that the application supported by an affidavit, had been filed the prayer for grant of time for filing of the written statement and permission to deposit the full amount of the debt.
The application was opposed on the ground that, under Section 20 4 of the said Act, the entire amount of the arrears had to be deposited on or before the first hearing and the companyrt had numberpower to extend the time or to grant the permission that was sought.
Thereby the revision application filed by the appellant was dismissed but it was ordered that, subject to companypliance with certain companyditions, the appellant should number be evicted from the shop in suit for a period of four months.
The appellant also sought a companyy of the plaint.
P. Bharucha, J. Special leave to appeal granted.
This appeal impugns the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in its civil revisional jurisdiction.
On 2nd March, 1984 the appellant made a further application that, since he had number received the companyy of the plaint and the record of the case had been inspected very hurriedly, a mistake had occurred so that some part of the arrears had number been deposited.
He prayed that he should be allowed to deposit the same.
