JUDGMENT Hon'ble D.K. Arora, J.—By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.10.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow and the order dated 4.4.2008, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow. 2. Heard Sri R.N. Gupta assisted by Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 to 8. 3. The facts, in brief, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the controversy in the present case relates to a premises bearing No. 227/24/25, Astabal Yahiyaganj, Lucknow, owned by Late Sri Badri Prasad Gupta and Smt. Raj Kumari (here-in-after referred to as the premises in dispute). The boundaries of premises, in dispute, are as under : East : Gali Sarkari West : House of Chhotelal Compounder North : Gali Sarkari South : Portion of other tenant of the same premises. 4. Sri Ram Sahai Upadhyaya was tenant in premises in question at monthly rent of Rs.50/- (excluding of all taxes), the said tenant had not paid the rent from 1.9.1994 to 4.6.1998, as such, was in arrears of rent since 1994. He had also not paid water tax for the said period. Further tenant (Sri Ram Sahai Upadhyay) demolished and rebuilt the western wall of the tenanted premises and converted the same into RCC slab, thus, constituting material alteration, also demolished the stairs leading to the first floor, which diminished the value and utility of the building as well as disfigured the premises in his tenancy. 5. Accordingly, as the premises in question was disfigured by the tenant, the landlord sent a notice for demanding rent and terminating the tenancy dated 4.5.1998. The said notice was sent through registered post to the tenant (Ram Sahai Upadhyaya) which was received by him on 5.5.1998, who failed to comply the same. The landlord (late Sri Badri Prasad Gupta), therefore, filed S.C.C. Suit bearing No. 260/1998 on 26.11.1998 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow (opposite party No. 2). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that initially the suit was decreed ex-parte by order dated 10.12.1999. Thereafter, the tenant moved an application for recalling the said order, the said application was allowed and the suit was restored to its original number. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that initially the suit was decreed ex-parte by order dated 10.12.1999. Thereafter, the tenant moved an application for recalling the said order, the said application was allowed and the suit was restored to its original number. Thereafter on 18.11.2002, the petitioner-tenant submitted an application under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) to which the landlord filed objection inter-alia stating therein that since the deposit was grossly insufficient and the petitioner-tenant already had an alternative accommodation, hence, he was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner-tenant filed written statement in which it was stated that he (Sri Ram Sayai Upadhyay) was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- which included all taxes, except water tax. It was further submitted that while making compliance of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act the tenant had deposited rent in excess which needs to be adjusted and, thus, on the date of first hearing, he had deposited the entire amount, he does not possess any alternative accommodation, as pleaded by landlord. Further, it was totally incorrect on the part of the landlord to state that the tenant had made any material alteration in the premises under his tenancy but minor repairs were made on the tenanted portion to make the tenanted portion wind and water proof. 8. During pendency of suit, Sri Badri Prasad Gupta expired in the year 2004 and in his place, his wife, sons and daughters, who are opposite parties No. 3 to 8 in the present writ petition, were substituted as heirs of the deceased. Moreover, during pendency of the suit the sole tenant Sri Ram Sahai Upadhyay expired on 24.9.2005. As such, his legal heirs i.e. the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay and Sri Anil Kumar Upadhyay (opposite parties No. 10 and 11) were brought on record. 9. Moreover, during pendency of the suit the sole tenant Sri Ram Sahai Upadhyay expired on 24.9.2005. As such, his legal heirs i.e. the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay and Sri Anil Kumar Upadhyay (opposite parties No. 10 and 11) were brought on record. 9. Sri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after exchange of pleadings and other documentary evidence, the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow by order dated 4.4.2008 allowed the suit of the plaintiff for arrears of rent and ejectment, holding that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent and was a defaulter within the meaning of the Act. It was further held by the Trial Court that material alteration had been done by the tenant. 10. Aggrieved by order dated 4.4.2008, the petitioner-tenant filed a S.C.C. Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887, registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 52 of 2008 before opposite party No. 1. After hearing the parties on merit and on the basis of pleadings and other material available on record opposite party No. 1 dismissed the revision by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2009. However, the opposite party No. 1 while passing the order dated 21.10.2009 has given a finding that the deposit made by the petitioner-tenant was not in accordance with law and was short about Rs.1400/-. The petitioner-tenant has an alternative accommodation and, hence, he was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. However, the Revisional Court does not upheld the findings recorded by the Trial Court in respect of material alteration made in the building. 11. Aggrieved by the orders dated 21.10.2009 and 4.4.2008 passed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 respectively the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court. 12. Sri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the orders, challenged in the present petition, submits that as a matter of fact and record, the petitioner was never in default in respect of arrears of rent which excludes water tax etc. as such the Courts below had wrongly allowed the matter in question, so, the orders passed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are perverse and illegal. as such the Courts below had wrongly allowed the matter in question, so, the orders passed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are perverse and illegal. He further submitted that as the petitioner had deposited the entire rent as demanded by the landlord by notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on the first date of hearing, and admittedly the opposite parties (landlord) have not moved any application under order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. so there was no justification or reason on the part of Courts below to decree the suit of landlord for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner. 13. Sri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at present in the premises in question four tenants are residing including the petitioner, namely, (1) Savitri Devi widow of Ram Autar Gupta, (2) Chunni Devi widow of Ram Ji, (3) Tulsi Ram s/o Sri Budhai and (4) Jokhan s/o Sri Sadhu Ram. Further the landlord has four other houses situated in the city of Lucknow. So there is no bona-fide need of the landlord in respect of the premises in question, which is under the petitioner’s tenancy. Accordingly, the suit filed by the landlord-defendant for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was wholly misconceived as there is no bona-fide and genuine need on the part of the landlord-defendant on the basis of which he wanted to get the premises in question vacated. 14. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner-tenant has no other alternative accommodation in the city of Lucknow and as per order passed by the Revisional Court (opposite party No. 1), the petitioner is paying rent at the rate of Rs.900/- per month, moreover as no amount was due at the time of first hearing of the case, only the dispute with respect to the payment of interest, if any, is remained deficient, which is to be ignored and, hence, the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside, and the present petition deserves to be allowed. In support of his contention, Sri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Ram Swaroop v. Uma Shanker, 2009(3) ADJ 242 . 2. Habib Ahmad v. 5th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 (22) LCD 608. 3. In support of his contention, Sri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Ram Swaroop v. Uma Shanker, 2009(3) ADJ 242 . 2. Habib Ahmad v. 5th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 (22) LCD 608. 3. Satish Chandra Kakkar and others v. 7th Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 2006(9) ADJ 269 . 4. Dhajja Ram v. 6th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, 2006 (24) LCD 354. 15. Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 to 8 submits that in the present case the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is not disputed, as such, the petitioner-tenant who was a defaulter of rent for more than four months so notice for arrears of rent and ejectment dated 4.5.2008 was sent which was received by him. Even then petitioner-tenant had not complied with the terms of notice so the suit was filed under the provision of Small Causes Courts Act. 16. He further submits that on the first date of hearing the tenant has to deposit the entire outstanding rent alongwith 9% interest as well as the cost of the suit which includes the half of taxable counsel fee, only then the tenant may be relieved of the burden of eviction as provided under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In the present case as a matter of fact and record the petitioner-tenant did not comply with the conditions as provided under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, as he has not deposited the entire amount as demanded. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence recorded categorical finding of fact that the composite notice for demand and ejectment was duly served upon the defendant. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence recorded categorical finding of fact that the composite notice for demand and ejectment was duly served upon the defendant. Further, the entire amount of rent was not deposited under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and was short by about Rs.1430.25, against which the petitioner-tenant preferred a Revision (Revision No. 52 of 2008) which was dismissed by the Revisional Court, confirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court that benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not available to the petitioner-tenant as he had not deposited the amount which was required to be deposited by him under law and was short by about Rs.1400/- odd, coupled with the fact that alternative accommodation was also available to him and on the said concurrent finding of fact the Revisional Court dismissed the revision by judgment and order dated 21.10.2009. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 3 to 8 in support of his contention relied upon the following judgments : (1) Raj Bahadur Singh v. District Judge, Fatehpur and others, 1998 (2) ARC 416 . (2) Munna Lal and others v. 3rd ADJ, Etawah, 2000 (1) ARC 381. (3) Mohd. Ilyas Ahmad v. XIIIth ADJ, Allahabad and others, 2002 (2) ARC 558. (4) Lala Ram Avatar v. IInd ADJ, Bulandshahar, 2006 (24) LCD 1045. (5) Mohd. Shah Nawaz Akhtar v. 1st ADJ, Varanasi and others, 2002 (9) SCC 375 . (6) Mahesh Chandra Baranwal v. District & Session Judge, Haridwar, 1995 (2) JCLR 310. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including their written submissions. 18. As per admitted fact of the present case, it is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner is tenant in the premises in question and opposite parties No. 3 to 8 are the landlords. It is also not in dispute between the parties that initially the original landlord of the premises in question had sent a notice to Sri Ram Sahai Upadhyay, father of the present petitioner on 4.5.2008 demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy as the tenant was defaulter in arrears of rent for more than four months. It is also not in dispute between the parties that initially the original landlord of the premises in question had sent a notice to Sri Ram Sahai Upadhyay, father of the present petitioner on 4.5.2008 demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy as the tenant was defaulter in arrears of rent for more than four months. After receiving the notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act, the tenant failed to comply with the same. The S.C.C. Suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages was instituted by the landlord which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 260 of 1998 before the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow. The Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow on the basis of pleadings and other documentary evidence in order to decide the controversy in question, framed the following four issues, which are as follows : (a) Whether the defendant/ petitioner was a defaulter? (b) Whether the defendant/petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972? (c) Whether the defendant/ petitioner had carried out any material alternation and construction? (d) Whether the notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act was in accordance with law? 19. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and material evidence on record, decreed the suit of landlord holding that after adjusting the entire sum as deposited by petitioner-tenant under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, as well as the amount deposited by the petitioner-tenant amounting to Rs.5862/-, there has been a deficiency of about Rs.1400/- and odd. So, the defendant/petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Trial Court has also given finding to the effect that the material alteration made by the defendant/ petitioner in the premises in question under his tenancy and also got an alternative accommodation at his hands. 20. So, the defendant/petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Trial Court has also given finding to the effect that the material alteration made by the defendant/ petitioner in the premises in question under his tenancy and also got an alternative accommodation at his hands. 20. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision (S.C.C. Revision No. 52 of 2008) which was dismissed by the opposite party No. 1 vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2009 and finding of fact was recorded to the effect that the defendant/petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, as the petitioner has not deposited the entire amount and a sum of Rs.1400/- odd was short towards the amount, which was to be deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing under Section 17 of the Act. Further, the Revisional Court upheld the finding given by the Trial Court that the petitioner-tenant has an alternative accommodation available with him. However, the finding in respect to the material alteration as given by the Trial Court, was not upheld by the Revisional Court while passing the judgment and order dated 21.10.2009. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts, the controversy, which is to be adjudicated in the present case is whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled for benefit as provided under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides as under : “20. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts, the controversy, which is to be adjudicated in the present case is whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled for benefit as provided under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides as under : “20. (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (1) 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 as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine percent 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.” 22. So far as the question of extending the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is concerned, there could be no doubt that the tenant has to deposit the entire outstanding rent alongwith 9% interest as well as the cost of the Suit which includes the half of taxable counsel fee, only then the tenant may be relieved of the burden of eviction as provided under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. However in the preset case, as per the admitted position, the petitioner-tenant on the date of first hearing i.e. 18.11.2002 deposited a sum of Rs.5862/- in compliance of Section 17 of Small Causes Court Act, read with Order 9 Rule XIII of C.P.C., the petitioner-tenant had deposited a sum of Rs.5862/- so there was a deficiency of about Rs.1400/- in the amount deposited by him in this regard, both the Courts below have given categorical finding of fact that after adjusting the entire sums deposited by the tenant under Section 17 of the Act, as well as amount deposited by the tenant amounting to Rs.5862/- there was a short fall of about Rs.1400/- so he was not entitled to get the benefit as per mandatory provisions, provided under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and on the basis of said fact the opposite party No. 2 decreed the suit of the landlord for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages, thereafter the revision was also dismissed by the opposite party No. 1. 23. In a suit under the Act, the tenant is entitled to claim exemption from ejectment under Section 20 (4) of the Act, if on or before the first date of hearing of the suit he deposited the entire arrear of rent before the Court or pays to the landlord. However, in the present case the petitioner-tenant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the amount which was deposited by him (tenant) was short of about Rs.1400/- on the date of first hearing so there was a great shortage in the amount which was required to be deposited under Section 20 (4) of the Act, keeping into consideration the rent of the premises in question or which was payable by the tenant at that relevant point of time was Rs.50/- per month, so no benefit can be availed of by the petitioner and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, has no force and deserves to be rejected. I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders, which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 24. I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders, which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 24. It is settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below can be set aside only when the same are contrary to the facts of the case and perverse in nature. The said situation does not exist in the present case. 25. In the case of Mahesh Chandra Burnwal v. District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar (supra) it has been held : “In the authority cited as Mani Nariman Daruwala alias Bharucha (deceased) through LRs. and others v. Phiroz No. Bhatena and others, 1991 (2) ARC 145, it has been held that in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior Court or Tribunal, if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion, or, if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or Tribunal, which has come or in other words, it is a finding which was perverse in laws. Except to the limited extent so indicated, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this authority, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Small Causes Court and the Revisional Court suffer from such an infirmity or are perverse so as to justify interference with the said finding under Article 227 of the constitution. Both the Courts below have held that the rate of rent was Rs.150 per month and the tenant being a defaulter, the application filed by the landlord deserved to be allowed and rightly so. 26. In the case of Mohd. Shah Nawaz Akhtar v. Ist ADJ Varanasi and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “3. ......... 26. In the case of Mohd. Shah Nawaz Akhtar v. Ist ADJ Varanasi and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “3. ......... In our opinion, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court ought not to have entered into re-appreciation of evidence and dislodged the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court and maintained in revision by the learned Additional District Judge. To satisfy our own conscience, we have gone through the record. In our opinion, the findings arrived at by the Trial Court are such as could have been reasonably arrived at and are well-reasoned and therefore, they are not open to interference. The learned Additional District Judge rightly affirmed those findings. Inasmuch as the orders of the Courts below were not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the High Court, the impugned order of the High Court dated 30-04-1997 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The order of the trial Court, as upheld by the learned District Judge, is restored. 27. Moreover, so far as the judgment of Ram Swarup v. Uma Shanker (supra) on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court in the said case held that neither at the time of giving notice or at the time of filing suit, the tenant was in arrears of rent for four or more than four months. Further if there was some deficiency in deposit, the same can be ignored, so on the basis of same, the suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages cannot be decreed. The said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the present case the amount which is deficient in deposit towards arrears of rent and interest etc. is grossly insufficient amount as held here-in-above. Further, authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Habib Ahmad v. 5th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar (supra), and Satish Chandra Kakkar v. 7th Additional District Judge, Allahabad (supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the said case the tenant was not defaulter for arrears of rent for more than the period of four months and, as such, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from them. 28. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow and the order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. 29. There shall be no order as to costs. After delivery of the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pankaj Gupta prays that reasonable time may be granted for vacating the premises in question. He undertakes that the premises will be vacated within the time prescribed by this Court. I have considered the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is hereby directed that the petitioner will vacate the premises in question within 60 days from today. —————