JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard. 2. Delay in filing recall application is explained satisfactorily. It is hereby condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 23.05.2014, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this application. The cause shown for absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, when the case was called in the revised list, is sufficient. The order dated 23.05.2014 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is, accordingly, allowed. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard Sri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Agarwal, Advocate for respondent. 3. This is a tenant's writ petition. The respondent-landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 37 of 2008 on the ground that tenant has committed default in payment of rent. The landlord set up his claim on the ground that monthly rent was Rs. 400/- and the default has been committed by tenant in respect of payment of rent since 01.07.1996. On 23.08.2002 a registered notice was sent but despite that no rent was paid. 4. The Trial Court while deciding issue no. 2 recorded a finding in favour of tenant that monthly rent was only Rs. 200/- and not Rs. 400/-. Further while considering issue no. 6, it has clearly recorded a finding based on evidence of plaintiff itself that rent used to be paid by tenant but the plaintiff-landlord did not issue any receipt to tenant. Further, tenant has not made any payment of rent from June, 2002. Thereafter it has also been noticed that tenant forwarded rent for the months of October and November 2002 by money-order. Then the Trial Court said that there is no evidence to show that any money-order was tendered for the rent of July, August and September, 2002 and, therefore, there is default. Thereafter the Trial Court proceeded to decide question, whether tenant was entitled for benefit under Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"). 5. Thereafter the Trial Court proceeded to decide question, whether tenant was entitled for benefit under Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"). 5. The question of benefit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 would arise only when it can be held that tenant is in default i.e. for a period of four months rent has not been paid despite demand vide Section 20(2)(a) of Act, 1972. In the present case the order of Trial Court does now show that it has recorded any finding that tenant was in default of rent for a period of four months. Once Section 20(2)(a) of Act, 1972 itself is not attracted, the suit for eviction on the ground under Section 20(2)(a) has to fail and question of giving benefit of Section 20(4) would not arise at all. 5. Unfortunately, the Revisional Court has also failed to look into this aspect of the matter and has confined itself to the question, whether tenant was entitled to benefit under Section 20(4) or not though the question of attracting Section 20(4) would arise only when default on the part of tenant for a period of four months is found proved. The basic question has not been found proved and there is no finding by both the courts below on this issue, therefore, the decree of eviction against tenant could not have been passed. The impugned orders are patently illegal and the courts below have committed manifest error of law, therefore, the same are not sustainable. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 11.03.2008 and 17.02.2011 are hereby quashed. No costs.