JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a plaintiffs' revision application under section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 22-11-1975 passed by the learned, First Additional District Judge, Bijnor. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are that on 14-1-64. the defendant opposite party had taken the shop in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- from Smt. Ram Rati Devi for a period of one year and executed a rent note in her favour. Even after the expiry of one year, he continued to remain in possession of the shop and caused substantial damage to it. By means of a notice dated 15-7-1972 Smt. Ram Rati Devi enhanced the rent to Rs. 62.50 per month. He fell in arrears of rent. Notices dated 14-9-1972 and 19-12-72 were given to him demanding rent and terminating his tenancy but he paid no heed. Henze Smt. Ram Rati Devi filed that suit for possession over the shop; for the recovery of Rs. 946/- as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and future pendente-lite damages at the rate of Rs. 62.50 p. per month. 3. The defendant opposite party contested that suit inter alia on the ground that the shop was taken on a monthly rent of Rs. 45 /- per month but as desired by Smt. Ram Rati Devi Rs. 50/- per month was mentioned in the rent note ; that he continued to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month but on the back of the rent note an entry was made of Rs. 50/- ; that he did not cause any damage to the shop ; that he was always willing to pay rent and even sent it to her by money order but she did not accept ; that the rent was never enhanced to Rs. 62-50 p. per month and that the notice to quit was invalid. It may be stated here that Sint. Ram Rati Devi died on 20th May, 1973, and her sons Rameshwar Prasad and four grand sons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Awinod Kumar, Arun Kumar and Alok Kumar were substituted in her place on their application dated 27-7-1973 (13-C). 4. The learned trial court held that the defendant was a tenant of the shop at Rs. Ram Rati Devi died on 20th May, 1973, and her sons Rameshwar Prasad and four grand sons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Awinod Kumar, Arun Kumar and Alok Kumar were substituted in her place on their application dated 27-7-1973 (13-C). 4. The learned trial court held that the defendant was a tenant of the shop at Rs. 50/- per month; that no damage was caused to it ; that he failed to pay arrears of rent within one month from the notice of demand and rendered himself liable to ejectment ; that the entire rent not having been deposited on or before 1st date of hearing, he was not entitled to the benefits of Section 20(4) and lastly that the notice to quit was valid and the plaintiff was not entitled to enhance rent. Accordingly the suit was decreed on 28-1-75 for possession over the shop; for the recovery of Rs. 770/- as arrears of rent upto 26-2-1973 and far pendente-lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. 5. On 18-2-1975, the plaintiffs revisionists are alleged to have obtained possession over the shop and are said to be still in possession of the same. 6. The defendant filed a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act but for reasons best known to him, he did not implead Ashok Kumar one of the heirs of Smt. Ram Rati Devi to the revision application. The learned First Additional District Judge, Bijnor held that the defendant filed his written statement on 7-12-1973 and it will be deemed to be the first date of hearing within the meaning of Section 20(4) and has tendered the entire amount due on that and the amount was actually deposited on 27-12-73 which will relate back to the date of the tender and therefore, the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act. No. 13 of 1972 were substantially complied with and the defendant was not liable to eviction. Accordingly the decree for possession and mesne profits was set aside and it was directed that the defendant will be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and the amount already deposited in the court will be adjusted towards the decree. 7. Accordingly the decree for possession and mesne profits was set aside and it was directed that the defendant will be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and the amount already deposited in the court will be adjusted towards the decree. 7. The plaintiffs have now come up in revision before this Court and the following points have been pressed on their behalf ; (1) Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not substantially complied with and its benefit could not be given to the defendant. (2) One of the heirs of Smt. Ram Rati Devi was not impleaded to the revision application under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and the decree passed by the trial court being individual, the learned First Additional District Judge was not competent to see it aside against any one. 8. Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 reads as follows : "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 tenders to the landlord the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting there from any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub section (1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant stage, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area." The aforesaid makes it clear that a tenant can be relieved of his liability to eviction if the following requirements are fulfilled . (a) The suit is for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) sub section 2 of Section 20. (a) The suit is for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) sub section 2 of Section 20. (b) That at the first hearing of the suit, the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the land lord. (c) The entire rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him together with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of suit in respect thereof after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of section 20. 9. For disposal of this revision application, I do not propose to go into the merit of the questions as to what was the date of fist hearing and whether the amount was paid or tendered to the landlord because it can be disposed of on another point. According to the plaintiffs revisionists 27th April, 1973 was the first date of hearing which was communicated to the defendant by means of the summonses. The defendant opposite party on the other hand contended that the first date was 7-12-1973 when he filed his written statement after a few adjournments. Assuming for a moment that 7th December, 1973 was the first date of hearing, the question for consideration will be whether the entire rent, damages interest and expenses as contemplated by Section 20(4) of the Act No. XIII of 1972 due up to 7th December, 1973 were deposited by defendant or not. In the instant case the position of arrears has been like this. 10. From 14th July, 1971 to 13th November, 1971 a sum of Rs. 20/- was in arrears of rent according to both the parties. The interest thereon up to the date of deposit comes to Rs. 3.60 p. 11. From 14-11-1971 to 7th December, 1973 which is alleged to be the first date hearing the rent had fallen due for atleast two years at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. It comes to Rs. Rs. 1200/-. The interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 9/- per annum for the same period comes to Rs. 216/-. 12. According to the decree, the plaintiffs revisionist's expenses were Rs. 390.65 p. Therefore, upto 7th December, 1973 according to the defendant's own showing a sum of Rs. 1830.25 p. was due. There is no controversy that he deposited Rs. 1200/-. The interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 9/- per annum for the same period comes to Rs. 216/-. 12. According to the decree, the plaintiffs revisionist's expenses were Rs. 390.65 p. Therefore, upto 7th December, 1973 according to the defendant's own showing a sum of Rs. 1830.25 p. was due. There is no controversy that he deposited Rs. 1182.50 P. by means of the first tender on 27-12-1973 and Rs. 450/- by means of the second tender on the same date. In this manner he deposited a total sum of Rs. 1632.50 p. as against Rs. 1330.25 p. It is, therefore, manifest that even if the defendant's own interpretation is accepted about the first date of hearing and about the tender the amount deposited in court was much less than the amount due up to the date of the deposit and he was not entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The judgment and decree passed by the learned revisional court, therefore, are liable to be set aside only on this ground and it is not necessary to go into the merits of other contentions. 13. The revision application is allowed with costs to the revisionists. The Judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court are re- stored.