JUDGMENT

BHARUCHA, J.:—Special leave to appeal granted.

2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in its civil revisional jurisdiction. Thereby the revision application filed by the appellant was dismissed but it was ordered that subject to compliance with certain conditions, the appellant should not be evicted from the shop in suit for a period of four months.

3. 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 Nov., 1980. The appellant contested the correctness of the averments in the plaint. He also claimed the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to "as the said Act"). The trial court, after evidence was recorded and arguments heard found that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act and decreed the suit. The revision application filed by the appellant was as aforesaid dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection before us. He submitted that the appellant had not approached the court with clean hands and that, therefore, we should not exercise in his favour the discretion under Art. 136. The submission that the appellant had not approached the court with clean hands was based upon the findings of the trial Court, affirmed, by the High Court, that when the defendant had appeared before the trial court and made an application for time for filing a written statement and permission to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 20(4) of the said Act, it had not been stated that a copy of the plaint had not been received by the defendant. Upon the type-written application interpolations in this behalf had been made by hand. To the trial court the interpolations did not appear to be genuine additions made in the course of preparation of the application or its presentation before the court but were in the nature of interpolations made for securing the benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act somehow or the other.

5. A photo copy of the application has been placed before us at our instance. We are not inclined to dismiss the appeal only upon the ground that the appellant had not approached the court with clean hands for, basically, two reasons. In the type-written application it is mentioned that the summons had not been served on the appellant and that he had not refused to accept it. What was added by hand was that a copy of the plaint relative to the summons had not been supplied. It was averred in the application as typed, that the defendant had not come to know of the suit filed against him prior to 24th February, 1984, which was the date of application, and in handwriting what was added was that the appellant had only just come to know about the suit and was depositing the entire amount of arrears. There was, therefore, only an amplification in handwriting of the averments already made in the typewritten application. Secondly, we find that each hand-written addition on the application is flanked on either side by initials and these initials are stated at the Bar to be of the advocate of the appellant before the trial court.

6. To turn now to the merits, we must notice, first, the provisions of Section 20(4) of the said Act. It reads, so far as it is relevant, thus:

"(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation if the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlords costs of the suit in res