JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17-9-1998, passed by District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in SCC Revision No. 1 of 1997, Shiv Prasad Sharma Vs. Vidya Sagar @ Laxmi Narain, contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus was sought directing the Judge SCC Pauri Garhwal to execute its judgment and decree dated 11-3-1997, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent No.3. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the Pujari of Hanuman and Garur Mandir and the defendant is a tenant in a room of the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Besides the rent, the defendant is also liable to pay house-tax, water-tax etc. Earlier, before filing this suit the defendant had also defaulted in payment of rent and a SCC suit No. 10/1988 was filed which was decreed and the defendant had deposited the whole arrears of rent and water tax along with interest. The defendant is in arrears of rent from 1-1-1989 to 3 1-3-1992. The plaintiff had sent notice to the defendant demanding arrears of rent and determined his tenancy, but despite service of notice neither the rent was paid nor the defendant vacated the premises, therefore the suit was filed. 3. The defendant filed his W.S. and asserted therein that the suit has been filed on wrong facts. The plaintiff is neither the owner of the disputed premises, nor he is the landlord and relation of landlord andtenant does not exist in between the parties. Two room are in tenancy of the defendant but eviction from one room has been sought. The notice sent is void and illegal. It is further pleaded in the W.S. that the defendant is not liable to pay any water or house tax. The defendant is not liable to be evicted. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred by provisions of Order-2 Rule 2 C.P.C. and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 4. It is further pleaded in the W.S. that the defendant is not liable to pay any water or house tax. The defendant is not liable to be evicted. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred by provisions of Order-2 Rule 2 C.P.C. and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 4. The learned Judge SCC, on the basis of pleadings of parties framed necessary issues in the suit. Thereafter parties adduced their evidence. The learned Judge, S.C.C. on the basis of evidence of parties came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and the suit is not barred by the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. The notice is neither illegal nor void. The defendant is a habitual defaulter and is not entitled to get benefit of provision of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The plaintiff himself has not given the details of the house tax, water tax etc. With these findings the suit was decreed against the defendant. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Judge, S.C.C. the defendant-tenant preferred SCC revision before the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. The revisional court allowed the revision in part and modified the decree passed by Judge SCC that the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of eviction. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by revisional court the plaintiff has filed this writ petition with the assertion that the defendant has not deposited the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing but it was deposited on the adjourned date of hearing, hence compliance of Section 20(4) of the Act No.13 of 1972 was not made. It is further pleaded that although the defendant in his W.S. has denied the title of the landlord/plaintiff, but the revisional court has recorded a wrong finding that denying the title of the landlord is not enough as it is necessary to prove that after the said denial, the landlord has not waived off his right of re-entry or condoned the conduct of the tenant and the tenant cannot be evicted even if he has denied title of the landlord. It is further alleged in the petition that the title of landlord was not denied by the defendant in earlier SCC Suit which was filed against the tenant and in which the entire rent was paid to the landlord by the tenant declaring himself to be the tenant and petitioner as the landlord. Hence there can be no defence for denying the title of the landlord to the plaintiff. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/tenant and denied the averments made in the writ petition. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the defendant had offered rent to the landlord but he refused to take it and thereafter he had deposited the rent in the court. The defendant/tenant has never denied the title of the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The learned revisional court has recorded a finding that the trial court had come to the conclusion that the defendant is a habitual defaulter. Earlier too suit for recovery of rent had been filed and habitual defaulter is not entitled to get benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. But in these conclusions there is no merit because provision of Section 20(4) does not say that its benefit will not be given to a tenant who is a habitual defaulter and even a habitual defaulter, if he deposits the entire rent and other dues as per provision of Section 20(4), would be entitled for its benefit. It was also observed by the revisional court that the deposit of arrears of rent was made prior to the first date of hearing. Reliance was placed on the case of Monah and others vs. 3rd Addl. District Judge Varanasi and others, reported in 1995 SCD page 203 wherein it has been held that in a case where summons were issued to the defendant mentioning the date fixed for filing the W.S. and not mentioning the date of hearing of the suit, the date fixed for hearing thereafter would be the date of first hearing of the suit. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the amount of rent which has been claimed in the plaint has not been deposited unconditionally along with interest on the first date of hearing therefore there was default on the part of the defendant-tenant. 11. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the amount of rent which has been claimed in the plaint has not been deposited unconditionally along with interest on the first date of hearing therefore there was default on the part of the defendant-tenant. 11. So far as the deposit of rent on the first date of hearing U/S 20(4) of the Act is concerned, the finding recorded on this issue is a finding of fact. This Court is not of the view that default has been made in the deposit of the rent. 12. The second question left for consideration of this Court is whether the defendant-respondent has denied the title of plaintiff/petitioner and whether it is a ground for ejectment under sub-clause(f) of sub section(2) of section 20 of the Act. 13. The learned revisional court on the issue of denial of title of landlord by the defendant-tenant gave a finding that in order to succeed under clause (f) of Section 20(2) of the Act, it was not only necessary for the landlord to prove that the tenant had denied the title of the landlord but it was further necessary to allege and prove that the landlord had not waived his right of re-entry and condoned the conduct of the tenant since no finding has been given by the revisional court on the second condition of clause (f) of Section 20(2) of the Act, no benefit can be given. This finding of the revisional court is a perverse finding. In para-1 1 of the W.S. filed by the defendant before the Judge SCC shows that the defendant has made a clear cut denial of the plaintiff being the landlord of the disputed premises. It was pleaded in para-11 of the W.S. that the plaintiff is not Pujari of Hanuman Mandir. He was in Government Service and he had never been the owner of disputed building. The land over which the Mandir is situated is the land of State. The plaintiff had also filed a declaratory suit which was dismissed and the plaintiff has no concern and right over the disputed property. As the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff over the property in dispute specific issue was framed by the trial court and the trial court recorded a categorical finding that the defendant-tenant has denied the title of the plaintiff. As the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff over the property in dispute specific issue was framed by the trial court and the trial court recorded a categorical finding that the defendant-tenant has denied the title of the plaintiff. In a case of rent ejectment the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be seen and if the tenant denies the title of the landlord then he is liable to eviction as per provision of sub clause (f) sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. 14. As the defendant/tenant has denied the title of plaintiff/petitioner over the property in question, he is liable for eviction from the disputed property. 15. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the revisional court declining the eviction of the defendant/respondent from the premises in dispute is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 14-3-1997 passed by the Judge SCC is hereby affirmed. 16. However, the defendant/respondent is given nine months’ time to vacate the premises in question, provided he files an undertaking to the effect that he will vacate the premises after nine months, and will give full possession to the petitioner, before the Judge SCC concerned within a period of four weeks from today, and further he continues to pay the rent of the premises to the landlord.