Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This petition by the landlord is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.10.2005 whereby the Additional District Judge, Bijnor has allowed the revision of the respondent-tenant setting aside the order of eviction passed by the trial Court.

3. Originally late Ram Niwas, father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 was a tenant of the disputed premises situated in Tehsil Dhampur in district Bijnore at a monthly rent of Rs.12.50, on his demise, they became tenants of the disputed premises. The petitioner-landlord vide notice dated 4.3.2002 terminated the tenancy of the tenants on the ground of default, sub-letting to respondent No. 5, material alteration etc. which was registered as SCC Case No. 60 of 2002. The respondents filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations and the trial Court framed at least five issues including on the point of sub-letting and whether the tenants were entitled for protection under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). After the parties had led their evidence, it decreed the suit holding that the respondent No. 5 was not a member of the family of the tenants and thus, was a sub-tenant and since the deposits under Section 30 (1) of the Act were illegal and further that the tenants had at least two houses within the same municipal limits, were not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved, the respondents-tenant preferred a revision No. 21 of 2004 which has been allowed holding that since the respondent No. 5 was son of the daughter of Late Ram Niwas and was looking after mentally challenged respondent Nos. 3 and 4, he would not be deemed to be a sub-tenant but only a guardian. The Revisional Court went on to hold that once an order under Section 30 (1) had been passed in favour of the tenants who had deposited the rent, the trial Court had erred in holding that the tenants have failed to prove legal deposit and thus, it set aside the eviction decree and allowed the revision.

5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that once it was admitted and proved that the tenants had at least two residential premises within the same municipal limits, they were not entitled to the protection of Section 20 (4) of the Act. It is also contended that respondent No. 5 was neither a member of the family of the tenant or his heir, and at best his occupation would be of a sub-tenant. It is then urged that the revisional Court has ignored the requirement of Rule 21 (5) of the Rules framed under the Act and therefore there was no legal deposit under Section 30 (1). Lastly, it is urged that the revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the facts.

6. It would be appropriate to take note of relevant part of Section 20 (2) and sub-section (4), which is to the following effect :

“20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds—(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner :

(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the termination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely :

(a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand;

(b) ....................................

(c) ....................................

(d) ....................................

(e) ....................................

(f) ....................................

(g) ....................................

Sub-section (4) reads as under :

(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