Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgments and decree dated 14.9.1999 and 12.5.2005 passed by Judge Small Causes Court. Etah and Additional District Judge, Etah respectively in S.C.C. Suit No. 37 of 1986 and S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 1993 respectively.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Suit No. 37 of 1986 against Late Mauji Ram, father of the petitioners for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 11.11.1976 to 10.5.1986. Notices were issued by the Court fixing 21.8.1986 which were served on the tenant, which was incidentally a holiday, as such, the case was taken up on 22.8.1986.

3. The plaintiff was present in the Court but neither late Mauji Ram nor his Counsel was present when the case was taken up, as such, the Court on 22.8.86 ordered the case to proceed ex-parte fixing 29.8.86 for ex parte hearing. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e., the tenant appeared in the case on 29.8.1986 and filed an application for setting aside the order dated 22.8.1986 to proceed ex-parte. The application was allowed and the order dated 22.8.1986 was set aside fixing 9.10.1986 for final hearing and filing of written statement.

4. It is claimed by the petitioners that as averred in paragraph 16 of their written statement they had deposited the entire amount in excess than claimed by the plaintiff-respondent together with interest as well as costs of the suit etc., as per provision of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) even before the date of first hearing and that the plaintiff-respondent could withdraw the same. It is also claimed by the petitioners that this fact was not denied by the landlord-respondent in reply to the aforesaid written statement.

5. The Judge, Small Causes Court decided S.C.C. Suit No. 37 of 1986 in favour of the landlord treating the ‘date of first hearing’ in the case as 22.8.1986 and not 29.8.1986.

6. Aggrieved, the tenant-petitioners preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 1993, which too was dismissed by judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Etah who by its order dated 12.5.2005 affirmed the judgment and decree of Judge, Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No. 37 of 1986.

7. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the only controversy in the instant case is as to what would be the ‘date of first hearing’. He contends that if, for any reason, the date fixed in the summons is adjourned to a future date, the adjourned date on which the Court applies its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, would the ‘first date of hearing’. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the decisions in Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, 1993 (2) A.R.C. 451; Mam Chand Pal v. Smt. Shanti Agarwal, 2002 (1) A.R.C. 370 and Ashok Kumar and another v. Rishi Ram and others, 2002(2) A.R.C. 160.

8. In Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui (supra) it is held :

“Learned Counsel for the respondent drew attention to the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the said Act and laid emphasis upon the Explanation thereto which said that for the purpose of this sub-section the expression “first hearing” meant ‘the first date for any step or proceedings mentioned in the summons served on the defendant”. In his submission, the date of first hearing was the date of the service of the summons on the appellant, which, in the instant case, had to be presumed since the summons had been returned by the postal authorities with the remark “Refused.” We do not question the latter part of the submission but, in our view the date of the first hearing cannot, plainly, be the date of service of the summons. That is plain from the expression “first hearing” itself and from the meaning given to it in the said Act."

9. Counsel for the respondent contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners exec