ORDER T.S. Misra, J. - The petitioners who are the landlords of the premises in question filed a suit against the defendant-opposite-party No.3 for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and for his eviction from the said premises contending that the defendant was a tenant at the rate of Rs 75.00 per month, that he had failed to pay the arrears of rent outstanding from 1-4-1975, despite repeated demands and service of notice on him and that his tenancy had been determined by serving on him a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant, on a variety of grounds. He pleaded inter alia that the rate of rent was Rs. 30.00 per month and not Rs. 75.00 per month as claimed and that he was not liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute because his tenancy had not been determined by any valid notice. He also pleaded that he had not committed any default in payment of rent. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the rate of rent at which the premises had been let out to the defendant was Rs. 30.00 per month and that he was not liable to be evicted inasmuch as he had deposited rent and damages on the first date of hearing of the suit in terms of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The notice determining the tenancy was, however, held to be valid. The suit was, on the findings reached by the trial Court, dismissed so far as the relief of eviction was concerned but was decreed for a sum of Rs. 447.00 towards the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month from 1-4-1975, with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by that decision the landlords filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The tenant also filed a revision. Both the revisions were rejected by the learned District Judge by one Judgment. The landlords have now come up to this Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning both the aforesaid judgments. The petition has been opposed. 2. The tenant also filed a revision. Both the revisions were rejected by the learned District Judge by one Judgment. The landlords have now come up to this Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning both the aforesaid judgments. The petition has been opposed. 2. For the petitioners it was urged that the amount deposited by the tenant-opposite-party No.3 in the trial Court on the first date of hearing was not the full amount as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act; hence no benefit of that section should have been given to the tenant to save his eviction from the premises in question. According to the petitioners the rate of rent was Rs. 75.00 per month. They had claimed arrears of rent at that rate and if the tenant wanted to take benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act he should have deposited the rent and damages on the first date of hearing of the suit at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per month and not at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. Further he should have deposited interest on the amount due and costs of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount so payable was Rs. 1910.87 p. whereas the amount deposited by the defendant was Rs. 1754.85; hence both the Courts below erred in granting relief to the tenant-defendant under Sec. 20 (4) of the Act. The learned counsel for the tenant however, submitted that if the amount of rent and damages were to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month the amount deposited by the tenant-defendant in the court below far exceeded the amount which he was required to deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The submission was that both the Courts below had held that the rate of rent was Rs. 30.00 per month, hence the amount should have been calculated at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month and not at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that as the amount was to be deposited unconditionally by the defendant he had to deposit it at the rate claimed by the plaintiffs if he wanted to save his eviction by invoking the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. 3. 75.00 per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that as the amount was to be deposited unconditionally by the defendant he had to deposit it at the rate claimed by the plaintiffs if he wanted to save his eviction by invoking the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. 3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it would be appropriate here to read S. 20 (4) of the Act. Sub-section (4) of S. 20 reads as follows:- "(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in court 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 therefrom 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 state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area." 4. It would be seen that sub-section (4) of Sec. 20 of the Act does not say in specific terms that the tenant should pay or tender to the landlord or deposit in Court the entire amount of rent and damages at the rate claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. This provision secures the principle of social justice and as it is meant to give relief to tenants it has to be construed liberally and no words should, therefore, be imported in the section which are not to be found therein. This provision secures the principle of social justice and as it is meant to give relief to tenants it has to be construed liberally and no words should, therefore, be imported in the section which are not to be found therein. The tenant has no doubt to deposit the rent and damages in Court or pay or tender the rent and damages to the landlord unconditionally but this does not mean that the amount to be deposited as rent and damages should be calculated at the rate claimed by the landlord. What has to be seen is whether the tenant has put any conditions while making tender of rent to the landlord. If the payment is sought to be made subject to any condition the landlord is entitled to refuse to accept the amount. Even this principle is found enunciated in Section 38 of the Indian Contract Act. It is also to be seen that sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act provides that "any amount deposited by the tenant under sub-sec. (4) or under Rule 5 of Order XV of the First Schedule to the Civil P. C., 1908, shall be paid to the landlord forthwith on his application without prejudice to the parties pleadings and subject to the ultimate decision in the suits". If any condition is imposed by the tenant no order can be passed for making payment of the amount deposited in the Court forthwith to the landlord. It was held in Smt. Inder Kaur v. Chandra Shekhar Trivedi, (1979 All WC 556 : (1979 UPLT (NOC) 20)) that "unconditional payment means that the amount can be paid to the landlord without any precondition being attached thereto. Conditional payment means that if a condition is fulfilled, then the payment will be made and if that condition is not fulfilled, the payment will not be made." The tenant in the instant case attached no condition while depositing the rent in the Court. He merely stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 30.00 per month and not Rs. 75.00 per month as claimed by the landlord. He merely stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 30.00 per month and not Rs. 75.00 per month as claimed by the landlord. A landlord cannot render the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act nugatory by making fantastic claims towards the arrears of rent or asserting that the rate of rent was different from what was claimed by the tenant and ultimately the Court on a consideration of the evidence finds it to be exaggerated and baseless. The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 have been enacted with a view to give protection to a tenant from eviction where the eviction is sought for on the sole ground that the tenant has committed default in making, payment of rent despite service of notice on him. The tenant is by this provision given an opportunity to save his tenancy by making payment of rent to the landlord on the first date of hearing. Obviously this payment of rent is to be made at the agreed rate of rent or in other words at the rate at which the premises was let out and not at the rate which the landlord may claim even when such a rate of rent was never agreed upon. In the view which I take, I find support from a decision of this Court in Ram Kishan v. District Judge, Banda (1976) 2 All LR 763 : (1977 All LJ 114) wherein it was held : "The purpose lying behind Sec. 20(4) is to relieve the tenant against the liability for eviction in the suit filed for his ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act in case he makes the requisite deposit contemplated by the said sub-section (4). It is nowhere stated in Section 20 (4) that the tenant must deposit rent at the rate claimed by the landlord. The deposit as contemplated by sub-section (4) is of the rent payable by the tenant. The landlord cannot deprive the tenant of the benefit of Section 20 (4) just by making a fantastic claim in regard to the rate of rent. Of course, if ultimately the finding recorded by the Courts below had been that the case set up by the tenant was wrong and the monthly rent was Rs. 21/- per month, the position might have been different." 5. Of course, if ultimately the finding recorded by the Courts below had been that the case set up by the tenant was wrong and the monthly rent was Rs. 21/- per month, the position might have been different." 5. In the case in hand it was found by the trial Court that the rate of rent was not Rs. 75.00 per month but was Rs. 30.00 per month as alleged by the tenant. He had, therefore, to deposit the rent and damages at the rate of Rupees 30.00 per month on the first date of hearing together with interest thereon as also costs of the suit. The learned Counsel for the tenant stated that if the deposit was to be made at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month then the amount actually deposited by the tenant far exceeded the amount contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that if the deposit was to be made at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month then the amount deposited by the tenant did exceed the amount required to be deposited under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The first point on which much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the landlords-petitioners therefore fails and is accordingly rejected. 6. It was next argued that no doubt the trial Court had found that the rate of rent was Rs. 30.00 per month but the revisional Court where the point was again agitated did not state any reasons as to why it accepted the finding of the trial Court on the point and therefore the finding was vitiated. I find no merits in this contention as well. The revisional Court below while considering the issue observed that the learned Civil Judge has given cogent reasons for his findings and no error of law has been pointed out. Hence the plea was rejected. Thus the revisional Court affirmed the finding reached by the trial Court on the issue. It is by now a settled view that if the appellate Court or for the matter the revisional Court affirms the finding reached by the trial Court it need not state its reasons in detail. Hence the plea was rejected. Thus the revisional Court affirmed the finding reached by the trial Court on the issue. It is by now a settled view that if the appellate Court or for the matter the revisional Court affirms the finding reached by the trial Court it need not state its reasons in detail. What appears to be is that the learned District Judge after going through the record and the judgment of the trial Court found that the finding of the trial Court was based on cogent reasons and there was no reason for him to disagree with that finding. He, therefore, rejected the plea advanced by the landlords. It was submitted that the finding was perverse and, therefore, the District Judge should have re-appreciated the evidence. There is no force in this contention as well. The trial Court gave reasons for its findings and since it was not vitiated by an error of law and as it was based on sound reasons the learned District Judge affirmed it. It is a finding of affiance. Hence the mere fact that the learned District Judge did not re-appreciate the evidence would not be a valid ground for interference. Moreover, the learned District Judge was considering the matter in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction and the scope obviously was not as wide as that while considering an appeal. 7. No other point was urged and pressed. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.