JUDGMENT

S.C. AGRAWAL, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the tenant arises out of a suit for eviction filed by Respondent 3 on the ground of default in payment of rent under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said suit was filed in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut on 9-1-1990. Summons were issued fixing 20-3-1990 as the date for filing the written statement and 28-3-1990 was the date fixed for final hearing of the case in the court. It appears that the copy of the plaint was not annexed with the summons served on the appellant. The appellant, therefore, moved an application before the court on 28-3-1990 praying for supply of copy of the plaint. The said copy was supplied to the appellant on 28-3-1990 itself and on that day the court passed an order directing that the written statement be filed within one month and 24-7-1990 was fixed as the date for final hearing of the case. On 2-5-1990 the appellant deposited the entire amount of rent that was due and claimed protection from eviction under Section 20(4) of the Act. The Judge, Small Cause Court, however, held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act because the date of first hearing was 27-4-1990 and the arrears of rent were deposited on 2-5-1990 i.e. after 27-4-1990. By his judgment dated 14-10-1993, the Judge, Small Cause Court, therefore, decreed the suit and passed an order for ejectment against the appellant. The revision petition filed by the appellant against the said decree was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut by judgment dated 24-5-1994 and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court by judgment dated 7-7-1994. Hence this appeal.

3. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The said provision, as amended by U.P. Act 28 of 1976, provides as follows :

"20. (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 of 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 respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground :

* * *

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section-

(a) the expression first hearing means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant;"

4. The Explanation was inserted in Section 20(4) by the Amendment Act of 1976. Dealing with the provisions of Section 20(4), as they stood prior to the amendment of 1976, this Court in Ved Prakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan{(1981) 3 SCC 667} construing the expression "first hearing of the suit" has held: (SCC p. 668, para 3)

"We may however add that the expression at the first hearing of the suit is also to be found in Order 10, Rule 1, Order 14, Rule 1(5) and Order 15, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions indicate that the first hearing of the suit can never be earlier than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the parties (Order 10, Rule 1) and the settlement of issues [Order 14, Rule 1(5)]."

5. The provisions of Section 20(4), as amended by the Amendment Act of 1976, whereby the Explanation was inserted in Section 20(4), were considered by this Court in Siraj Ahmad Siddiqul v. Prem Nath Kapoor{(1993) 4 SCC 406} wherein it has been held : (