Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The only question up for consideration, as to what was the first date of hearing in the present case and whether petitioner complied with requirement of deposit of entire amount on the first date of hearing or not as contemplated in Section 20(4) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") so as to get its benefit? 3. The petitioner's claim that he submitted Tender for payment of entire dues including rent etc. on 29.1.1997 and payment was actually made on 31.1.1997. According to him 29.1.1997, when the Court noticing his appearance allowed his application granting time to file written statement, should be deemed to be first date of hearing and not any early date. 4. The order sheet is on record. It shows that notice/summon were issued to petitioner which were deemed sufficient by the court on 10.10.1996 and the case was adjourned to 17.12.1996 for further orders. The order dated 10.10.1996 reads as under: @ Hindi @ "Today the case came up. The advocates have abstained from work. Summons properly served. The case be put up for P.O. On 17.12.1996." (English Translation by the Court) 5. Thereafter the matter came up on 17.12.1996 and then on 29.1.1997 and the proceedings on both these dates read as under: @ Hindi @ "17.12.1996 The case came up. Plaintiffs put in attendance. The advocates have abstained from work. The case be put up for further orders on 29.01.1997." (English Translation by the Court) @ Hindi @ "29.01.1997 On being called none is present. Reader informed that both the parties were present earlier. Signature has been put in by defendant on the file. In view of the date of filing as noted by Reader, this day is not the date of filing written statement (WS) in this case, hence it shall not be 'admitted' without any application. The defendant, if he so wishes, may move an application for 'admitting' the same or else it shall be treated to be rejected. Application has been moved by the defendant for admitting the WS filed. Heard; the WS is admitted at the cost of Rs. 20/. The counsel for plaintiff seeks time for re-application. Hence, re-application be filed within 1 5 days. Application has been moved by the defendant for admitting the WS filed. Heard; the WS is admitted at the cost of Rs. 20/. The counsel for plaintiff seeks time for re-application. Hence, re-application be filed within 1 5 days. The case be put up on 26.02.1997 for evidence. Tender was also filed." (English Translation by the Court) 6. It is evident from the record that neither on 10.10.1996 nor on 17.12.1996 when service upon the petitioner tenant was deemed sufficient, he either paid or was allowed time for filing written statement but the case was adjourned for "further orders". The order sheet dated 10.10.1996, in my view, clearly shows application of mind on the part of the Court on the said date and therefore, it constitute "first date of hearing". Admittedly on that date no amount, as contemplated under Section 20(4) of Act, 1 972 was deposited by petitioner and, therefore, the Court below has not faulted in any manner in holding that petitioner failed to deposit entire dues, as contemplated under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 to claim benefit on the first date of hearing. The reliance is placed on this Court's decision in Sant Lal Vs. IIIrd ADJ, Ghaziabad & Ors., 2008 (3) ARC 184; and Mahesh Chander Nigam Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat & Am., 2008(3) ARC 292 but the facts were totally different in those matters and therefore, do not help the petitioner in any manner. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. _____________