JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a defendant's revision application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. In brief the facts are that the plaintiffs-opposite parties are the landlords of the house in dispute which was let out to the defendant-revisionist on a rent of Rs. 10/- per month. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant tenant fell in arrears of rent from 1.8.1970 to 30.3.1971 and the notice demanding the arrears of rent and ejectment was given to him on 3.5.1971. It was served on the defendant on 4.5.1971 but he neglected to pay any rent and failed to vacate the house. Hence that suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant- revisionist and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. 3. The defendant-revisionist contested that the suit inner alia on the grounds that the house was governed by the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 that rent was paid upto January 1971 and the amount remitted for the subsequent period was refused by the landlords. The validity of the notice to quit was also challenged. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the learned trial court held that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1.8.1970 and was liable to eviction on the ground of default. The notice to quit was held to be valid. The provisions of U. P. Act III of 1947 were held to be not applicable to this property. 5. The defendant filed a revision application and pressed only one point before the learned District Judge. It was that he did not commit any default in the payment of rent and was not liable to eviction. The learned District Judge did not find favour with this contention and dismissed the revision. Hence this revision. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. Only two points have been pressed before me. In the first place it is urged that the defendant-revisionist did not commit any default in the payment of rent and was not liable to eviction. This contention is based on the ground that in their notice the plaintiffs had alleged that rent was in arrears from 1.8.1970. Exs. A-7 and A-3 are acknowledgement receipts of money orders which show that Rs. This contention is based on the ground that in their notice the plaintiffs had alleged that rent was in arrears from 1.8.1970. Exs. A-7 and A-3 are acknowledgement receipts of money orders which show that Rs. 40/- were sent by money order on 4.12.1970 and Rs. 30/- were sent in the first week of February 1971. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, if these two amounts are adjusted it would be evident that rent was paid upto January 1971. Another money order in respect of rent for February and March 1971 was sent in May 1971 which was refused by the landlords. Again a money order of Rs. 30/- was sent on 26th of May, 1971, which was refused by the landlords on 31.5.1971. This money order is said to have been sent in respect of rent for February, March and April 1971. I have looked into the evidence on the record and I find that there is not much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The money order of Rs. 40/- was sent on 4.12.1970 and was received by the landlords on 7.12.1970. The second money order of Rs. 30/- was received by the landlords on 8.2.1971. Both these money orders were received by the landlords before 3.5.1971 when the notice of demand and ejectment was given to the defendant-revisionist. When the landlords alleged in their notice that rent was in arrears from 1.8.1970 they clearly meant that the rent received by them by the aforesaid two money orders was in respect of the period prior to 1.8.1970. This amount could not, therefore, be treated as rent for the period subsequent to 1.8.1970. This conclusion is further warranted by the fact that in his statement the defendant-revisionist gave out that if no allowance is made for the money spent on repairs, the rent would be in arrears from 1.8.1970. It is true that in their statements the plaintiff stated that they could not correctly say from which date the rent was in arrears but much capital cannot be made out of this statement. He had also stated that at the time they gave notice of demand they had made calculations and come to the conclusion that rent was due from 1.8.1970. He had also stated that at the time they gave notice of demand they had made calculations and come to the conclusion that rent was due from 1.8.1970. Both the learned lower courts have considered the entire evidence and I see no satisfactory reason to interfere with this finding of fact. Therefore, the first contention carries absolutely no force. 7. In the second place it is argued that the revisionist is entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) because he had deposited Rs. 250/- by the first date of hearing. It appears that 14.8.1972 was the first date of hearing in this case. Rent was due from 1.8.1970. In order to claim the benefit of section 20(4) of the new Act the defendant-revisionist should have deposited the entire amount of rent and damages as well as interest and costs of the suit due up to the date of deposit. If this amount is worked out it will admittedly exceed the figure of Rs. 250/- alleged to have been deposited in the trial court. Therefore, even the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act cannot be extended to him. 8. The revision application has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs on parties but the revisionist is granted three month's time from the date of this order to vacate the premises.