JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - The writ petition was allowed ex parte on merits by an order dated 9.11.1982. Subsequently upon an application moved on behalf of the respondent, the judgment and order dated 9.11.1982, were recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number. Therefore, both the parties argued the case on merits. The petition is now being disposed of on merits after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is plaintiff's petition directed against an order passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut, dated 12.10.1979, allowing a revision filed by the defendant (respondent No. 3 here in) under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the petitioner's suit for ejectment as well as recovery of arrears of rent and damages. 3. The suit was filed on the ground of default. The plaint allegations were that the defendant was plaintiff's tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 50/-. He did not pay any rent since 1.12.1975. Thereupon, a notice of demand was sent to the defendant under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was duly served on the defendant but he did not pay the arrears of rent. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant who asserted that he had not committed any default and was hence not liable to be ejected. 5. The defendant sought the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act by making the deposit of the arrears of the rent, costs and interests on 12.1.1978. The trial Court refused to give the benefit of that provision to the defendant on the ground that the defendant had not made the deposit on the date of the first hearing mentioned in the summons, namely, 29.11.1979. On the finding that the defendant was in default, the suit of the petitioner was decreed both for ejectment as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, pendente lite and future. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the defendant filed a revision which has been allowed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut by an order dated 12.10.1979 which is the subject of challenge in this petition. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the defendant filed a revision which has been allowed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut by an order dated 12.10.1979 which is the subject of challenge in this petition. The learned Additional District Judge held that the date of first hearing in this case was 13.11.1978 when the Court applied its mind to the facts of the case for the first time. In support, the learned District Judge placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Krishna Lal v. Lal Narendra Kumar, 1078 All. Law Reports 798. The decision of the learned Additional District Judge is manifestly unsustainable. It was not disputed that the defendant was duly served with the summons of the suit and in the summons 28.11.1977 was mentioned as the date of first hearing. The hearing of the suit was, however, adjourned at the instance of the defendant's counsel himself on that date to 13.1.1978. 7. In Jagannath v. Ram Chandra, 1982(1) All. Rent Cases 665 (DB), Division Bench considered the effect of Explanation 1 to Order 15, Rule 5, CPC which is expressed in the same terms as the explanation which has been added to Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, according to which the date mentioned in the summons is to be deemed to be the date of first hearing for the purposes of application of these provisions. The Division Bench has held that in view of the clear and unambiguous language of the explanation referred to above, the date of first hearing would be the date mentioned in the summons and not the date to which the hearing of the suit may be adjourned even though without transacting any business. 8. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, however, tried to distinguish the aforesaid Division Bench decision on the ground that in this case the adjournment had been sought by the defendant on account of a personal ground of his counsel. Consequently, it was urged, the case falls within the excepted category of cases mentioned in the aforesaid Division Bench decision. 9. I cannot agree. Consequently, it was urged, the case falls within the excepted category of cases mentioned in the aforesaid Division Bench decision. 9. I cannot agree. The only exception was contemplated by the Division Bench was in regard to cases were the Court itself is for some reason unable to take up the case on the date fixed for hearing in the summons, that is, where the defendant is ready and willing to comply with the provisions of Section 20(4) on the date fixed in the summons, but the Court itself is not available for compliance. The present case does not hence, in my opinion, fall in that category of cases. 10. In this view, it is clear that the revisional Court was in error in holding that the date of first hearing was 13.1.1978. It is not disputed that the defendant did not make the deposit as required under Section 20(4) on or before 28.11.1977. He was hence not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4). 11. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 12.10.1979, is quashed and that passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes court, Meerut, is restored. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has given an understanding on behalf of the said respondent that the respondent No. 3 would hand over vacant possession to the petitioner on or before 30th June, 1983, and that he would not directly or indirectly induct any other person over the disputed accommodation. In view of this undertaking, I direct that the execution of the decree for ejectment shall remain stayed until the 30th of June, 1983. The said respondent shall handover vacant possession on or before 30.6.1983 to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 shall deposit in the executing Court or pay directly to the petitioner damages for use and occupation calculated at the rate of rent for the period ending 30th June, 1983, beginning from 1st of January, 1983, within two months from today. In the event of default, it will be open to the petitioner to execute her decree forthwith.