Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant and Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord/plaintiff.

Facts of the case :

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent plaintiff is the owner and the landlord of Bunglow No. 90, Civil Lines, Jhansi. In the said Bunglow, there is a house bearing new Municipal No. 1455 owned by the respondent-plaintiff in which the petitioner-defendant was tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner-defendant defaulted in payment of rent since 1.7.2006 and as such he issued a notice dated 16.8.2008 to the petitioner-defendant/tenant demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner-defendant on 22.8.2008. However, the petitioner-defendant neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the tenanted house. Consequently, the respondent-plaintiff/landlord filed SCC Case No. 59 of 2008 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction of the petitioner-defendant from the disputed house and payment of arrears of rent of Rs. 5340/- for the period 1.7.2006 to 21.9.2008 and thereafter damages @ Rs. 40/- per day amounting Rs. 960/- from the date of filing of the case. The petitioner-defendant filed his written statement on 26.3.2010 being paper No. 24C. In her written statement, the petitioner-defendant alleged that the rent for the period subsequent to 1.7.2006 was not accepted by the respondent-plaintiff and as such, she deposited the rent for the period 1.7.2006 to 31.8.2009 in Misc. Case No. 58 of 2009 under Section 30(1) of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Jhansi. As per facts noted in the impugned order dated 14.4.2011 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi, the petitioner-defendant had short deposited a sum of Rs. 758/- by the date of filing the written statement i.e. 26.3.2010. She deposited a sum of Rs. 800/- by tender 33C dated 8.4.2010. The petitioner-defendant took the stand before the Judge, Small Causes Court that the date of first hearing is 12.4.2010 by which date, the entire amount in terms of Section 20(4) of the Act or Order XV Rule 5 CPC stood deposited and therefore, she was entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 758/- was found to be short deposit even after adjustment of the amount deposited by the petitioner-defendant under Section 30 of the Act. The Judge, Small Causes Court found that a sum of Rs. 7600+Rs.800+Rs.600 total Rs. 9,000/- was illegally deposited by the petitioner-defendant under Section 30 of the Act and therefore, it was not liable to be adjusted for the purposes of Section 20(4) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rihanda Mal Sindhi v. District judge Jhansi, 2005 (1) ARC 110, the amount deposited by the petitioner defendant under Section 30 of the Act after issuance of a notice terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent, cannot be considered to the deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act. Following the aforesaid decision, the Issue No. 4 was decided against the petitioner-defendant by the impugned judgment dated 14.4.2011 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi. As a consequence of the answer to the Issue No. 4, the Issue No. 5 was answered against the petitioner-defendant and the suit was decreed. The SCC Revision No. 99 of 2011 filed by the petitioner-defendant to challenge the aforesaid judgment dated 14.4.2011, was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi by the judgment dated 1.2.2017. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Mam Chand Pal v. Shanti Agarwal, 2002 (3) SCC 49, the revisional Court held that the date of first hearing was 26.3.2010 on which date, the petitioner filed the written statement and on the said date, the entire amount of rent etc