SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the Judgment of the trial court dated 23. 11. 1978, dismissing the suit filed by him. Against the Judgment of the trial court, the petitioner preferred a revision and the learned revisional court vide its order dated 14. 2. 1983. dismissed the revision against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a S. C. C. Suit No. 39 of 1974 on 9. 2. 1974, for recovery of Rs. 831. 41p. as arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that respondent No. 3 was tenant in the disputed premises at the rate of Rs. 73. 13p. per month. However, the rent being not paid since 1. 9,1972, a notice dated 29. 5. 1973, was sent to him but inspite of the service of the notice, the rent was not paid and, therefore, he was liable for eviction on the ground mentioned under Section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the act ). The respondent-tenant filed written statement and claimed benefit of the deposit having been made by him under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The trial court having found that respondent no. 3 had deposited the entire arrears of rent on the first date of hearing along with interest and cost of the suit as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act, the suit for eviction was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. Respondent No. 1, dismissed the revision on 14. 2. 1983. These decisions have been challenged in the present writ petition. ( 2 ) I have heard Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri A. D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. ( 3 ) THE sole question involved in this petition is whether the respondent-tenant had deposited the amount on the date of first hearing as contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the Act. It may be necessary to indicate certain facts to decide this question. The respondent-tenant filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge transferred the suit vide its order dated 4. 5. 1974 to the 1st Additional Civil Judge. The file of the case was, however, wrongly, transferred to the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge. Dehradun. The Court issued summons, fixing 5. 7. 1974, for filing written-statement and 12. 7. The District Judge transferred the suit vide its order dated 4. 5. 1974 to the 1st Additional Civil Judge. The file of the case was, however, wrongly, transferred to the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge. Dehradun. The Court issued summons, fixing 5. 7. 1974, for filing written-statement and 12. 7. 1974 for framing issues. Respondent No. 3 on 2. 7. 1974 (before the date fixed for filing written-statement) applied to the Court to permit him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1019. 06p. claiming benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The Court allowed the application of respondent No. 3 and he deposited sum of Rs. 1019. 06p. Respondent no. 3, further on 1. 12. 1975 deposited sum of Rs. 4. 450. It appears an objection was taken that the Court had no Jurisdiction to decide the suit as the District Judge had transferred the case to the Ist Additional District Judge and not to the IInd Additional District Judge. On 3. 5. 1977, the district Judge transferred the case to the IInd Additional District Judge. Dehradun, where the case was already pending. The Court framed issues on 20. 2. 1978. ( 4 ) THE Court took the view that the date of first hearing will be 25. 2. 1978, i. e. . the dale on which the issues were framed and not prior to it. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the date mentioned in the summons for filing written-statement or framing of issues should be taken as the date of first hearing. In Advaityanand u. Judge, Small Cause Courf. Meerut and others. 1995 ID ARC 563. it was held that the date of the first hearing shall be the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in controversy between the parties to the suit and to frame issues, if necessary. Admittedly the Court did not frame any issue in the case prior to 25. 2. 1978. There is no other material to show that the Court had applied its mind in regard to the merits of the case prior to 25. 2. 1978. The deposit made by respondent No. 3. In these circumstances, shall be taken to have been made prior to the date of first hearing. 2. 1978. There is no other material to show that the Court had applied its mind in regard to the merits of the case prior to 25. 2. 1978. The deposit made by respondent No. 3. In these circumstances, shall be taken to have been made prior to the date of first hearing. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on, Bhagiuati Devi alias Bhaggo devi v. IIIrd Additional District Judge. Agra and others. 2000 (II AWC 549. This decision also followed the decision of the Apex Court in Aduaityanand v. Judge Small Causes Court (supra), and made following observations in Para 20 of the Judgment : "as already noted above, the Court must find out on the facts of each case as to what is the date on which the Court for the first time proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in controversy and this may even include framing of issues. If so mentioned in the summons. " ( 6 ) WHEN the Court proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in controversy is to be examined on the facts of each case. ( 7 ) SECONDLY, the District Judge had transferred the suit on 4,5. 1974, to the 1st Additional Civil judge. However, the record of the suit was wrongly sent to the IInd Additional Civil Judge. The case remained pending before him. The District Judge on 3. 7. 1977 transferred the case to the iind Additional Civil Judge and it is after this date, the IInd Additional Civil Judge could try the suit and apply its mind to the controversy involved in the suit. The respondent had deposited the entire amount prior to the date of transfer of the case. ( 8 ) THIRDLY, the respondent had deposited the amount under Section 30 (1) of the Act, prior to depositing the amount under Section 20 (4) of the Act, and such amount being adjusted, he was entitled to the benefit of the deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The respondent had deposited Rs. 1019. 06p. on 2. 7. 1974, before the first date of hearing in the Court. It was reported that there was deficiency of Rs. 1214. 50p. to get the benefit of the deposit under Section 20 (4)of the Act. The respondent had already deposited Rs. 1214. 50p. The respondent had deposited Rs. 1019. 06p. on 2. 7. 1974, before the first date of hearing in the Court. It was reported that there was deficiency of Rs. 1214. 50p. to get the benefit of the deposit under Section 20 (4)of the Act. The respondent had already deposited Rs. 1214. 50p. In the proceedings under Section 30 (1) of the Act. In Mahendro Nath Tandon v. Vlth Additional District Judge. Kanpur Nagar and others, 1997 (1) ARC 139. It has been held that the tenant is entitled to the benefit of deposit, made by him under Section 30 (1) of the Act, even though such deposit may not be valid in terms of Section 30 (1) of the Act as Section 20 (4) of the Act, provides that the tenant can deposit the amount after deducting the amount already deposited by him under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the Courts below rightly gave benefit of deposit made by the respondent under Section 20 (4) of the Act. ( 10 ) THE petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. .