JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. - The petitioner has rushed to this Court at an interlocutory stage when his application for dismissing the suit of the landlord, opposite party No. 3, was dismissed. 2. The revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Faizabad. 3. On the motion being presented notice was directed to be issued to opposite party No. 3 who put in appearance and filed a counter-affidavit, Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed, therefore, the case is ripe for hearing. Instead of passing a formal order of admission proceeded to hear the parties on merits. 4. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to mention a few dates. On January 1, 1979 an ex-parte decree had been passed against the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment. He moved an application for setting aside that decree, On July 14, 1979 the ex-parte decree was set aside and the case was posted for hearing on September 4, 1979. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 374.50 remained to be deposited and this amount was tendered only in 1982 when several dates for hearing had been fixed in the case. 5. The petitioner moved an application under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The learned trial Judge after considering the entire facts and circumstances recorded a finding that he had failed to deposit the entire amount on the first date of hearing and that was why the application was rejected for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-landlord. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court ought to have considered as to what was the amount due from the petitioner and since there was dispute with respect to the amount of rent an apparent error was committed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, in dismissing the application of the petitioner. In my opinion, such submission is devoid of merit. It has already been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Siyaram v. The District Judge, Kheri, 1984 (1) ARC 410 that if on the first date of hearing compliance is not made by the defendant he is not entitled to protection of Section 20(4). In my opinion, such submission is devoid of merit. It has already been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Siyaram v. The District Judge, Kheri, 1984 (1) ARC 410 that if on the first date of hearing compliance is not made by the defendant he is not entitled to protection of Section 20(4). I, therefore, see no error in the finding recorded by the Court below that the petitioner had deposited money which fell short by Rs. 374.50 which he tried to tender only in 1982. He was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel has placed reliance in support of his contention on a Division Bench decision of this Court in M/S. Transtel Electronics Ltd. Kanpur v. S.N. Gundu Rao, 1983 (I) ARC 395. The facts of chat case are distinguishable from the facts involved in the present case. In chat case in fact a dispute with respect to quantum of rent arose because the plaint had not been served with the summons on the defendants and, therefore, the Court allowed the revision and directed the Court below to apply its mind to the facts whether a copy of the plaint accompanied the summons which was served on the defendants (sic) were entitled to the protection of sub-section (4) of Section 20 and had also called upon the Court below to apply its mind and record a finding on the question whether the defendants were in arrears of rent. This petition in view of the Full Bench decision is devoid of merit and the order impugned in the petition calls for no interference. 6. It is, however, observed that after deciding the issue with respect to amount of rent payable by the tenant it will be open to the Court to reconsider the question whether the petitioner was in arrears of rent and the finding recorded on the present application moved by the petitioner would not come in the way of the trial Court trying the suit. In aforesaid discussion view of the matter the petition stands finally disposed of. The interim order vacated.