JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.4.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad in Revision No. 462 of 2006 (Kedar Nath Sahu v. Shiv Narain Barbar) whereby the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The respondent filed JSCC Suit No. 27 of 1995 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad on the ground of arrears of rent and ejectement. In the said suit following three issues were framed; (i) Whether the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short “Act”) is applicable. (ii) Whether the legal notice has been served upon the defendant. (iii) Whether the defendant is entitled for the benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. 3. After exchange of pleadings and evidence, the trial Court decided the Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner and respondent respectively and held that the premises comes within the ambit of Rent Control Act and the legal notice was served upon the defendant. As far as the Issue No. 3 “whether the defendant tenant is entitled to benefit as provided under under Section 20 (4) of the Act” is concerned, the trial Court held that the petitioner has deposited the entire rent and damages in accordance with the provisions as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act, as such, the defendant-tenant was entitled for the benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the respondent-landlord preferred SCC Revision No. 462 of 2006 wherein it was, inter alia, held that since the petitioner did not deposit the cost of the suit, he was not entitled for any benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the revision was allowed by order dated 16.4.2010. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the costs could not be deposited by the petitioner since the respondent-landlord had not disclosed in the plaint as to how much costs was required to be deposited by the petitioner. 6. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the costs could not be deposited by the petitioner since the respondent-landlord had not disclosed in the plaint as to how much costs was required to be deposited by the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that in the plaint specific prayer was, inter alia, made for awarding the costs of the suit against the defendant petitioner but it was not deposited by him. Since the petitioner, admittedly, did not deposit the costs, he was not entitled for any benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act and was so liable to be evicted. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before I proceed to examine the controversy at hand it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provision of Section 20 (4) of the Act, which reads as under; “20 (4) ‘In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord 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 per cent 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 the 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 of 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 fro a contested suit.] 9. [Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section— (a) the expression “first hearing” means the first date of 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 fro a contested suit.] 9. The aforesaid provision clearly provides that for availing the benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act the tenant has to deposit the following amount; (i) At the first date of hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him. (ii) Interest thereon at the rate of nine percent per annum. (iii) landlord’s costs of the suit in respect thereof, 10. The explanation appended to the said provision also provides that “cost of the suit” includes one-half of the amount of counsel’s fee taxable for a contested suit. 11. In the present case, the cost of the suit was specifically prayed for by the landlord in his plaint. Admittedly the cost of the suit has not been deposited by the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner that he could not deposit the cost of the suit because the details of the costs as prayed for by the defendant-petitioner was not provided by the respondent in the plaint, is totally misconceived. The costs of the suit, inter alia, includes Court fees paid in the suit and one half of the counsels’ fee taxable for a contested suit as provided under Clause (VIII) of Rule 585 of the General Rules Civil, 1957 (In short “General Rules Civil”) read with explanation (b) of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 12. It is evidently clear from the perusal of the record that admittedly the tenant has not deposited the cost of the suit as contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the Act, therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of the section 20 (4) of the Act in order to protect himself from eviction. The revisional Court has rightly pointed out that the trial Court has committed manifest error of law in granting the benefit to the tenant under Section 20 (4) of the Act despite the fact that the costs of the suit was not deposited. 13. The revisional Court has rightly pointed out that the trial Court has committed manifest error of law in granting the benefit to the tenant under Section 20 (4) of the Act despite the fact that the costs of the suit was not deposited. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court. 14. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 16. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least three month’s time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlord did not raise any objection to it. 17. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, three month’s time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioner gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the concerned prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the respondent-landlord without inducting any third person within a period of three months from today. It is further provided that the petitioner shall pay the entire arrears of rent including the rent payable up to the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 18. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord opposite party will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force. ——————