Sudhir Agarwal, J.— This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2000 whereby the Trial Court decreed suit of respondents-landlords for eviction of petitioner-tenants from the building in dispute which is a shop situated at Nehru Road, Farrukhabad and the order dated 25.11.2005 whereby petitioners' revision has also been dismissed. 2. The suit was filed alleging that rent of shop is Rs. 50/- per month and tenants have committed default by not making payment of rent since 01.04.1992. The tenants disputed rate of rent after putting their appearance by filing Vakalatnama of their counsel on 17.07.1997 after service of summons on 05.05.1997. Thereafter they sought time for filing written statement which was allowed and the case was adjourned on dozens of dates, i.e., 02.09.1997, 06.10.1997, 06.11.1997, 06.01.1998, 06.02.1998,07.03.1998,04.04.1998,04.05.1998,06.07.1998,10.08.1998,09.09.1998, 08.10.1998,10.11.1998,11.12.1998,12.01.1997,27.02.1999,27.03.1999,03.061999, 03.07.1999,06.08.1999,10.09.1999,12.10.1999,31.10.1999 and 25.11.1999. Ultimately on 14.12.1999 the petitioners-tenants deposited Rs. 2424/- claiming itself to be a purported compliance of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and filed written statement on f 5.12.1999. They claimed benefit of Section 20(4) that no decree of eviction should be passed against them since they have deposited entire amount of rent and other expenses before the first date of hearing. 3. Both the courts below have come to conclusion that though the tenants disputed rate of rent and claimed that it was only Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 20/- per month as claimed by respondents-landlords, but in fact it is Rs. 50/- per month. They have recorded a finding of fact that rent of shop was Rs. 50 per month. This finding has not been shown perverse or contrary to record. Having said so the courts below have also found that tenants deposited rent of shop in question on 14.12.1999 at the rate of Rs. 20 per month and not at Rs. 50 per month. Therefore, there was an apparent default on their part in compliance of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972. 4. Sri A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that rent was deposited by tenants on 14.12.1999 treating the rate of rent as Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 50/-. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding on rate of rent after framing issue on it holding that rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month. Sri A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that rent was deposited by tenants on 14.12.1999 treating the rate of rent as Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 50/-. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding on rate of rent after framing issue on it holding that rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month. Therefore, there is no apparent compliance of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 on the part of petitioners. 5. Though the courts below have also held in the alternative that even if the rent is taken to be Rs. 20/- per month the deposit made on 14.12.1999 cannot be said to be a deposit made before first date of hearing and this part of the order has been challenged by petitioners by relying on Apex Court's decision in Advaita Nand Vs. Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut and others, 1995(1) ARC 563 but for my purpose suffice it to mention that question of fact regarding rate of rent having been decided in favour of landlords that rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month, thereupon since, admittedly, the tenants have not deposited entire rent due at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month on the first date of hearing, therefore, he is not entitled to claim benefit of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 and the decree of eviction passed by courts below cannot be said erroneous or vitiated in law justifying inference by this Court. 6. No other point has been argued. 7. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is an application for substitution of legal heirs of respondent no. 1 who is said to have died on 04.01.2006. The two sons of respondent no. 1 are already party to the writ petition as respondents no. 2 and 3. Only the widow is to be substituted. 2. Heard. 3. The application is allowed. Smt. Prema Devi widow of Late Bhagwan Das is allowed to be substituted in place of respondent no. 1. Let substitution be carried out? during course of the day. Newly substituted respondent no. 1 is represented by Sri; A.B.L. Verma, Advocate, who is also representing respondents no. 2 and 3. Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is an application seeking deletion of petitioner no. 1. Let substitution be carried out? during course of the day. Newly substituted respondent no. 1 is represented by Sri; A.B.L. Verma, Advocate, who is also representing respondents no. 2 and 3. Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is an application seeking deletion of petitioner no. 4, who is said to have died on 19.11.2006 and her legal heirs are already party to the petition as petitioners no. 1 to 3. 2. Heard. 3. The application is allowed. Let the name of petitioner no. 4 be deleted during course of date. _____________