JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. -- Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amitabh Agarwal, Advocate, for revisionist and Sri Haider Hussain, Advocate, for respondents. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007 passed by Sri Umesh Chandra Saxena, Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Meerut decreeing SCC Suit No. 30 of 2002 granting relief of ejectment from premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits from defendant-revisionist. 3. Only question raised before this Court is that defendant-revisionist has been denied benefit under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") on the ground that defendant-revisionist's family member, i.e., wife, has got another accommodation, i.e., house in the same City, i.e., Meerut, where the disputed premises is situated. Learned Counsel for revisionist submitted that there is no finding that house was acquired subsequently and it was a property in the name of defendant-revisionist's wife's name which was subsequently sold and she had only some share therein. 4. Proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of Act, 1972 reads as under: "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." 5. It says that if a tenant or his family member 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, benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of Act, 1972 will not be available to him. It does not contemplate that house or accommodation must be available after a particular date and thus if it was already available, benefit of Section 20(4) obviously would not be available. This fact is not disputed, hence Section 20(4) has rightly been held inapplicable in this case. 6. No other argument has been raised. 7. In view thereof, I do not find any manifest error in the order impugned in this revision. 8. Dismissed. 9. This fact is not disputed, hence Section 20(4) has rightly been held inapplicable in this case. 6. No other argument has been raised. 7. In view thereof, I do not find any manifest error in the order impugned in this revision. 8. Dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. Certify this order to the Lower Court immediately.