JUDGMENT S.D. AGARWALA, J. 1. THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings in a Suit No. 308 of 1978 filed by Jawahar Lai against the petitioner Badri Prasad for arrears of rent and ejectment in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad. 2. THE property in dispute is premises no. 88, Shahganj, Allahabad. Jawahar Lai, respondent no. 3, is the landlord. THE petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month. THE above mentioned suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 342/- on account of rent for the period from 25th November, 1975, to 24th April, 1978. THE suit was filed on the basis that the petitioner was a defaulter in the eye of law. On the first date of hearing, namely, 22nd September, 1978, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 570/-, as required by Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. THE trial court, without considering the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act or not, decreed the suit on 17th December, 1979. THE petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid judgment under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. This revision was numbered as Revision No. 14 of 1980. This revision was, ultimately, allowed by the revisional court and the matter was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act or not. 4. AFTER remand, the Judge, Small Causes Court, by its order dated 24th April, 1981, held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In this order, no decree for ejectment was passed against the petitioner and hence an application was made by the respondent no. 3 under section 151 read with section 152, CPC for correction of the order dated 24th April, 1981. The Judge, Small Causes Court, by his order dated 30th April, 1981, corrected the order dated 24th April, 1981, and further passed a decree for ejectment against the petitioner. 3 under section 151 read with section 152, CPC for correction of the order dated 24th April, 1981. The Judge, Small Causes Court, by his order dated 30th April, 1981, corrected the order dated 24th April, 1981, and further passed a decree for ejectment against the petitioner. This order dated 30th April, 1981, was challenged again by the petitioner in revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision was numbered as Revision No. 340 of 1981. The revision was dismissed by the revisional court by an order dated 12th February, 1982. The petitioner has now challenged the orders dated 24th April, 1981, 30th April, 1981, and 12th February, 1982, by means of the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. THE petitioner has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. THE view, to the contrary, taken by the courts below is manifestly erroneous. THE second contention raised by the learned counsel is that the trial court erred in passing a decree for ejectment on 30th April, 1981, by means of an application under section 151 read with section 152, CPC without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 6. SO far as the second submission of the learned counsel is concerned, it is not necessary for me to consider the same, as I am of the view that the decree for ejectment cannot stand in view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In this view of the matter, I am only considering the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The admitted facts are that the petitioner did deposit the amount of rent due against him on the date of first hearing, as required by section 20 (4) of the Act. The only controversy is whether the petitioner deposited the interest amount in full or was the interest amount short. The view taken by the courts below is that the petitioner had to deposit the amount of interest calculating at 9% on the flat rate on the entire amount due from 25th November, 1975, to 24th September, 1978. The only controversy is whether the petitioner deposited the interest amount in full or was the interest amount short. The view taken by the courts below is that the petitioner had to deposit the amount of interest calculating at 9% on the flat rate on the entire amount due from 25th November, 1975, to 24th September, 1978. The petitioner has, however, urged that he is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% as and when the amount became due and not on the entire amount at the flat rate. In effect, the submission is that the petitioner was liable to pay interest in regard to the rent from the date when it becomes due viz. if rent for November, 1975, is due on 1st December, 1975, interest would be payable from that date onwards in respect of rent of November, 1975. Similarly, the interest is payable from 1st January, 1976, in respect of the rent of December, 1975, and so on. Interest cannot be charged from December, 1975, in respect of rent due in September, 1978. 7. SECTION 20 (4) of the Act, which is relevant for the purposes of this case, is quoted below:- "20 (4). In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (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 is 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. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section (a) the expression 'first hearing' means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; (b) the expression 'cost of the suit' includes one-half of the amount of counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit." 8. THE above sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act provides that in case the tenant wants to take the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act and wants himself to be relieved from the decree of eviction, he has to deposit unconditionally at the first hearing of the suit the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due against him together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. The words "with interest thereon" have to be interpreted in the present case. When an amount is not due at all, the question of payment does not arise. The expression "interest thereon" would be interest payable on an amount due and that is why in the first portion of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the tenant has been obliged to deposit the entire amount of rent and damages for the use and occupation of the building due from him. The word 'due' has to be read along with the words "interest thereon". Unless an amount is due, the question of payment of interest does not arise. In the circumstances, the question of paying interest at the fiat rate of nine per cent on the entire amount due does not arise. As and when the rent is due, interest is payable on that amount. In the circumstances, on the rent which was due in September, 1978, the tenant is not liable to pay interest from 25th November, 1975, onwards. The Legislature could not have intended that even on an amount which was not due in 1975, the petitioner would have to pay interest from 1975 onwards till the amount is claimed by the landlord. In my opinion, such an interpretation would be wholly an unreasonable one and would be against the intention of the Legislature. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The view taken by both the courts below is manifestly erroneous. 9. In my opinion, such an interpretation would be wholly an unreasonable one and would be against the intention of the Legislature. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The view taken by both the courts below is manifestly erroneous. 9. IN the judgments of the courts below, a decision of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad v. Sardar Boota Singh, 1976 All India Rent Control Journal 594 has been referred. IN that case, this question was not specifically raised nor decided. The Court had only calculated interest on an amount due against the tenant in that case. IN the circumstances, it cannot be said that Rameshwar Prasad's case laid down a law to the contrary. 10. IN the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 24th April, 1981, 30th April, 1981, and 12th February, 1982, are quashed. The suit is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in the suit throughout. Petition allowed.