JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.9.2013 passed by IV Addl. District Judge Haridwar in Civil Revision No.7 of 2013 Ghanshyam vs. Smt. Mahaviri and others. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that respondent filed a Small Cause Suit being No.13 of 2005 against the predecessor of petitioners for arrears of rent and ejectment. Predecessor of petitioners died during the pendency of the suit and subsequently the petitioners were impleaded as defendants. Prior to filing of the suit, a notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act was given to the defendant petitioners terminating their tenancy. In the plaint, the respondent also alleged that the defendant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to 19.10.2005, but in view of time barred rent, the respondent demanded the rent w.e.f. 7.11.2002. The suit was contested by the defendant/petitioners and written statement was filed denying the arrears of rent. It was specifically pleaded in para-15 of the written statement that no rent is due on the defendants. Thereafter, both the parties adduced their evidence. On the basis of pleadings, learned Judge, S.C.C. framed following issues:- i) Whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and water tax? ii) Whether the plaintiff has terminated tenancy of defendant vide notice dated 12.9.2005? iii) Whether the defendant is tenant @ Rs.80/- per month along with other taxes? iv) Whether at the time of filing of suit, Rs.20,000/- towards rent and Rs.3508/- towards tax was due upon the defendant and whether after excluding the time barred rent, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,384/-? v) Whether the defendants are entitled for benefit u/s 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. vi) Whether the notice given by the respondent is illegal? vii) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for? 3. On the basis of evidence, learned Judge S.C.C. has observed that there is no dispute regarding rate of rent. The issue of notice was decided in favour of the plaintiff. vi) Whether the notice given by the respondent is illegal? vii) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for? 3. On the basis of evidence, learned Judge S.C.C. has observed that there is no dispute regarding rate of rent. The issue of notice was decided in favour of the plaintiff. On the issue of default, learned Judge S.C.C. has observed in his judgment that defendant has failed to establish the fact that the amount, which was time barred, has been paid and the amount excluding the time barred rent has been deposited by the defendants on the first date of hearing therefore benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act was given to the defendants. Learned Judge further held that rent which has been claimed in the suit has been deposited unconditionally by the defendant. Learned Judge recorded findings against the petitioners/defendants on the arrears of rent but by extending benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree order 31.1.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred a revision. Vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2013, the revisional court allowed the revision by reversing finding of the trial court about benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The revisional court has observed that the trial court has committed manifest error of law in not considering the fact that benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act can only be extended if the tenant deposits entire due amount including the time barred rent. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the revisional court, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the learned revisional court has committed manifest error of law in holding that it was burden upon the defendant to prove the fact that rent was due w.e.f. 1.1.1986 since the trial court has decided issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Since no revision has been preferred against that finding, therefore, the argument of learned counsel cannot be accepted. 5. Since no revision has been preferred against that finding, therefore, the argument of learned counsel cannot be accepted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the judgment and order of the revisional court has placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Khadi Gram Udyog Trust vs. Sri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, reported in 1978 (4) S.C. 37 wherein it has been held that the tenant can take advantage of the benefit conferred by Section 20 (4) only when he pays the entire amount of rent due as required u/s 20(4). It has further been held that expression ‘entire amount of rent due’ would include rent which has become time barred. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chand Jain vs. First Addl. District Judge, A.L.R. 1989(15) S.C. 300 wherein it has been held that as the time barred arrears had been deposited by the appellant on October 1, 1977 only, the High Court took the view that entire arrears of rent had not been deposited on or before the date of first hearing inasmuch as the entire amount due as arrears of rent had not been deposited within time, the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts below. 9. By perusal of the judgment and order of the trial court, so far as finding on issue no.1 is concerned, it has been decided in favour of the plaintiff. On the issue of benefit of Section 20(4), this fact is not disputed that learned Judge, S.C.C. has given benefit of section 20(4) on the basis of amount claimed in the suit. The amount due which was mentioned in para-7 of the plaint has not been deposited unconditionally by the defendant. On the issue of benefit of Section 20(4), this fact is not disputed that learned Judge, S.C.C. has given benefit of section 20(4) on the basis of amount claimed in the suit. The amount due which was mentioned in para-7 of the plaint has not been deposited unconditionally by the defendant. The revisional court after considering this aspect that amount due was not deposited by the defendant has rightly not extended the benefit of Section 20(4). I am also of the considered view that compliance of section 20(4) was not made in letter and spirit by the defendants/petitioners. The judgment and order passed by revisional court does not suffer from any manifest error of law and therefore no interference is required. 10. In view of the discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2013 passed by IV Addl. District Judge Haridwar in Civil Revision No.7 of 2013 Ghanshyam vs. Smt. Mahaviri and others is maintained. However, to do the complete justice, the petitioners/tenants are granted time upto 31st December, 2014 to vacate the disputed premises provided they furnish a written undertaking before the Judge, S.C.C. within a period of eight weeks from today to the effect that they will vacate the disputed premises before 31st December, 2014 and shall deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord and shall deposit the entire decretal amount within a period of eight weeks from today and shall also continues to pay the rent/damages till 31.12.2014. In case, the petitioners/tenants fail to furnish the said undertaking within the stipulated period, the respondent/landlord would be at liberty to get the disputed premises vacated through court in accordance with law.