Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 20.04.2010 and 05.05.2012 whereby the landlord's suit for eviction has been decreed and revision has been dismissed by Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were entitled to claim benefit of Section 20 sub-section (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") since on the first date of hearing the entire rent was deposited by tenant but he could not dispute that there was already a residential property purchased by petitioners' son and, therefore, under proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 20 both the courts below have found petitioners disentitle for the said benefit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Girish Chandra Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2005(3) ARC 475 stating that in absence of any pleadings, no one could have been permitted to lead evidence beyond pleadings and the court below, therefore, could not have looked into the sale deed whereby petitioners' son purchased a house at Azad Colony Nagar Palika No. 8/4415, Saharanpur relying whereupon both the courts below have disentitled any benefit to petitioners. He, however, could not dispute the factum that petitioners claimed compliance of Section 20(4) on the first date of hearing. In my view while considering the question, whether petitioners are entitled for benefit under Section 20(4), the courts below were entitled to look into the provision in its entirety. 4. In the present case it is evident from record that suit was filed claiming non payment of rent by tenant from 06.02.2006 till the date of filing of plaint, i.e., January, 2008. The tenant filed written statement after service of notice stating in para 18 thereof that on the first date of hearing she has paid the entire rent, expenses, interest, counsel's fee etc. in the court and, therefore, she should be extended the benefit under Section 20 sub-section (4) of Act, 1972. She also filed an affidavit in support thereof and in para 11 this fact was reiterated. Thus here was a defence taken by tenant raking up this issue for the first time through her written statement. in the court and, therefore, she should be extended the benefit under Section 20 sub-section (4) of Act, 1972. She also filed an affidavit in support thereof and in para 11 this fact was reiterated. Thus here was a defence taken by tenant raking up this issue for the first time through her written statement. It is this defence of tenant which sought to be contested by landlord by filing an application dated 19.03.2010 placing on record the sale deed whereby the tenant's son had purchased a house at Azad Colony Nagar Palika No. 8/4415, Saharanpur. Hence, it cannot be said that the evidence sought to be adduced by landlord was beyond pleadings inasmuch as the aforesaid evidence sought to be adduced by landlord to contest the pleadings in defence taken by tenant that she is entitled for the benefit of Section 20 sub-section (4) since she has deposited the requisite amount as contemplated therein on the first date of hearing. The contention, therefore, that evidence was adduced by landlord beyond pleadings is incorrect. The judgment referred to and relied by learned counsel for the petitioner lends no credence to him in this case. 5. Since both the courts below have recorded findings of facts, which have not been shown perverse or contrary to record, I do not find it a fit case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Dismissed. _