Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The first respondent Smt. Vimla Rani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed SCC suit No. 03 of 1997 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of Surajpal, predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the respondent second set, in respect of a shop situated at Rishi Market, Etah. According to the plaint case, Surajpal had been the tenant since before 1970 on payment of Rs. 60/- per month as rent, which since 1.5.1975 was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month. It is claimed that since 1.10.1970, Nagar Palika, Etah imposed water tax @ 10% and house tax @ 5% on the annual value of the building. It is alleged that for the period 1.10.1970 to 31.3.1981, the annual value was assessed at Rs. 720/- per annum and since 1.4.1981 at Rs. 2400/- per annum. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are applicable. It is claimed that under Section 7 of the Act, the taxes form part of the rent, but since 1.10.1070, municipal taxes were not paid, nor the rent since November, 1995. The plaintiff had served a notice dated 27.3.1996 demanding arrears of rent and municipal taxes. Since the tenant failed to pay the arrears nor vacated the shop and hence, the suit.

2. The suit was contested by the tenant Surajpal by filing a written statement in which he claimed that there was no agreement between the parties making him liable to pay municipal taxes. He denied the liability to pay taxes. He further alleged that the notice dated 27.3.1996 was not served on him. He admitted that the rent was not paid since November, 1995 but claimed that the plaintiff herself stopped accepting the rent. The tenant also claimed benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act as the amount contemplated therein was allegedly deposited before the first date of hearing.

3. The trial Court framed various issues for determination. It decided issue No. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues by order dated 18.2.1998. While deciding issue No. 3 it held that that the defendant-tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. On issue No. 4, a finding was returned that the Judge Small Causes Court has full jurisdiction to try the suit. The order of the trial Court dated 18.2.1998 was challenged by the tenant by filing a revision which was dismissed on 25.2.1999. Thereafter, the tenant preferred writ petition No. 14843 of 1999 before this Court, which was disposed of with liberty to the tenant to challenge the order deciding preliminary issues alongwith the final order.

4. During pendency of the suit, the tenant Surajpal died and in his place the petitioners and the respondent second set were substituted. They filed separate written statement and also evidence. Ultimately, by judgement and decree dated 23.4.2011, the trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. The trial Court found that rent since November, 1995 was not paid, nor any amount towards municipal taxes. The tenant also failed to deposit the entire amount contemplated by Section 20(4) at the first hearing of the suit and consequently decreed the suit on ground of default with the meaning of Section 20(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgement of the trial Court, the tenants preferred SCC revision No. 6 of 2011, which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 3, Etah by judgement dated 18.11.2014. These judgements are under challenge before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made twofold submissions. First, that the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 5580/- on 11.2.1997 much before the first date of hearing on 20.2.1998 and thus, they were entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. It is urged that the aforesaid amount included a sum of Rs. 1080/- towards municipal taxes as per the demand made in the plaint and thus, the finding recorded by the Courts below that the entire amount of taxes had not been deposited on