ORDER N. D. Ojha, J. -This is a Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The opposite party instituted a suit against the applicant for his ejectment and for arrears of rent and damages on the ground that he had not paid the arrears of rent which were for a period of more than four months notwithstanding a notice of demand having been served on him, as contemplated by S. 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit has been decreed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur acting as Judge, Small Cause Court for the reliefs claimed by the opposite party and it is this decree which is under challenge in the present revision. 2. It was urged by counsel for the applicant that the requisite amount contemplated by Section 20 (4) of the Act having been deposited by the applicant at the first hearing of the suit, the applicant was entitled to be relieved against his liability for eviction. A similar plea was raised before the Additional District Judge but was repelled on the ground that the applicant had not deposited the entire amount contemplated by S. 20 (4) of the Act. 3. The only point which has been urged by the counsel for the applicant in support of this revision is that the applicant was not required to deposit costs of the suit insofar as the relief for arrears of rent and damages was concerned. According to counsel for the applicant Section 20 (4) contemplates deposit of only such costs which had been incurred by the plaintiff-landlord on the relief for eviction only. 4. Having heard counsel for the applicant at some length I find myself unable to agree with this submission. Considerable emphasis is placed by the counsel for the applicant on the circumstance that in the opening para of Section 20 (4) the words used are "in any suit for eviction" and not in any suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages". Considerable emphasis is placed by the counsel for the applicant on the circumstance that in the opening para of Section 20 (4) the words used are "in any suit for eviction" and not in any suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages". The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner ignores that if a suit is instituted by a landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same within one month of the notice of demand, as contemplated by Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act, it goes without saying that the tenant according to the landlord is under a liability to pay the arrears of rent also. If no relief is claimed either for the arrears of rent or for mesne profits, as the case may be, in the suit for ejectment, the claim of the landlord in respect of these reliefs is likely to be barred by O. 2, R. 2, C, P C. Order 2, Rule 2 (3) provides: "A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted." The expression cost of the suit has been defined in Explanation (b) of S. 20 (4). According to that definition this expression includes one-half of the amount of counsels fee taxable for a contested suit. The cost of the suit contemplated by S. 20 (4) would, therefore, be half of the amount of counsels fee taxable for a contested suit plus the amount of court-fee paid by the plaintiff, and as such other cost as he may have incurred up to the date of the first hearing of the suit. The cost of the suit contemplated by S. 20 (4) would, therefore, be half of the amount of counsels fee taxable for a contested suit plus the amount of court-fee paid by the plaintiff, and as such other cost as he may have incurred up to the date of the first hearing of the suit. What Section 20 (4) of the Act contemplates is that if the entire amount of the rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlords costs of the suit in respect thereof after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited under Section 30 (1) of the Act is paid or deposited by him at the first hearing of the suit, the tenant was entitled to an order relieving him against his liability for eviction on the ground that he had not paid arrears of rent for more than four months within one month of the date of notice of demand, Section 20 (b) of the Act, inter alia, contemplates that any amount deposited by the tenant under sub-section (4) shall be paid to the landlord forthwith on his application without prejudice to the parties pleadings and subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. In a suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Cl. (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, the tenant may in a given case plead adjustment on various counts, may also deny his liability to pay the rent and may raise such other plea which may be necessary for being decided in the suit. In Such an event even after the deposit at the first hearing of the suit of the amount mentioned in Section 20 (4) lis with regard to such pleas remains pending and has to be adjudicated. In a suit, however, in which no such plea was raised, on the deposit of the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building and any interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the cost of the suit, no lis thereafter survives and a composite order will have to be necessarily passed immediately relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction and disposing of the suit. When the plaintiff has been driven to file a suit for ejectment as well as arrears of rent and damages on account of the conduct of the tenant in not complying with the notice of demand there appears to be no reason to hold that the legislature contemplated deposit of only such amount towards the item of court-fee paid by the plaintiff which was payable on the relief of eviction only and not that portion thereof which was payable for the relief of rent and damages. 5. It was urged by counsel for the applicant that the words "in respect thereof after the words "costs of the suit" in Section 20 (4) clearly envisage only such cost of the suit which the plaintiff had incurred in regard to the relief for eviction only. In my opinion, the words in respect thereof cannot be construed to convey that meaning. As seen above in view of O. 2, R. 2 (3), C. P. C. in a suit for ejectment on the ground mentioned in S. 20 (2) (a), relief for arrears of rent and damages will have to be claimed by the plaintiff. Consequently, harmonious construction will have to be placed on the words "in any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Cl. (a) of sub-section (2)" and interpreted that way the words "suit for eviction" will include the relief for arrears of rent and damages. In other words they refer to the suit which the plaintiff had to file on account of the tenants conduct in not complying with the notice of demand referred to in S. 20 (2) (a) of the Act. In those cases where pleas of adjustment etc., as pointed out above, are also raised by the tenant the award of costs would certainly depend on the findings recorded finally on those pleas but this would not be a circumstance relevant for holding that the expression costs of the suit in respect thereof used in Section 20 (4) of the Act includes only the court fees paid on the relief for eviction and not on the relief for arrears of rent and damages. Consequently I am of the opinion, that the expression cost of the suit in respect thereof, used in Section 20 (4) of the Act includes the amount of court-fees paid by the plaintiff not only on the relief for eviction but also on the relief for arrears of rent and damages. 6. In the result, I find no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed.