Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.D.Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A.Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocate for the respondents.

2. The suit filed by petitioner for ejectment of respondent No. 3 from accommodation in question has been decreed partly to the extent of recovery of arrears of rent by permitting landlord to withdraw the amount deposited by respondent-tenant under Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) but the suit for the relief of ejectment has been dismissed vide order dated 14.10.1996 and the said order has been confirmed by dismissing petitioner’s revision vide judgment dated 23.9.1999.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no deposit on first date of hearing. The amount paid under Section 30(1) of Act, 1972 after issuance of notice could not be given due credit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 and therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. The submissions, as advanced, if considered vis a vis facts of the case, are thoroughly misconceived.

5. Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 itself provides that amount, which a tenant would deposit at the first date of hearing of the suit should be computed after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by him under Section 30(1) of Act, 1972. Therefore, the amount deposited by tenant under Section 30(1) has to be given due credit for finding out whether there is compliance of Section 20(4) or not. It is not the case of petitioner that after deducting such amount, still deposit made by tenant does not satisfy requirement of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that deposit was not made on the first date of hearing, inasmuch as, suit was filed on 31.5.1988 in which 3rd August, 1988 was the date fixed for filing written statement and 10th August, 1988 was the date fixed for hearing. The deposit was made by tenant on 4.8.1988 and therefore it cannot be said that the said amount was deposited on the first date of hearing.

7. The question as to what would be the first date of hearing of the suit in the light of the explanation in Section 20 has been considered by this Court time and again. The expression “first hearing” has been explained in Section 20(4) Explanation (a) and reads as under:

“the expression “first hearing” means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant.”

8. This expression has been considered by Apex Court in Ved Prakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan, AIR 1982 SC 816. It was held that the date of first hearing would not be before a date fixed for preliminary examination of parties and framing of issues. Similar was the view taken in an earlier judgment also in Advaita Nand v. Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut and others, 1995(1) ARC 563.

9. A three-Judge Bench of Apex Court also considered this issue in Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, 1993 (4) SCC 406 and said as under

“The date of first hearing of a suit under the Code is ordinarily understood to be the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind to the contentions in the pleadings of the parties to the suit and in the documents filed by them for the purpose of framing the issues to be decided in the suit. Does the definition of the expression ‘first hearing’ for the purposes of Section 20(4) mean something different? The “step or proceedings mentioned in the summons” referred to in the definition should we think, be construed to be a step or proceeding to be taken by the Court for it is, after all, a “hearing” that is the subject-matter of the definition, unless there be something compelling in the said Act to indicate otherwise; and we do not find in the said Act any such compelling provision. Further, it is not possible to construe the expression “first date for any step or proceeding” to mean the step of filing the writte