JUDGMENT
1. Tenant is the appellant. The matter arises under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondent-landlord filed the suit for eviction on the ground of default in paying rent for the period 4-4-75 to 23-2-78. The suit was decreed exparte in the first instance but later the exparte decree was set aside at the instance of the tenant. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that one of the conditions upon which the exparte decree was set aside was the payment of rent due. He says that it was so deposited within the time granted. On 24-2-78 the tenant filed a written statement. Issues were framed on 3-3-78. On that day, the tenant deposited a further sum of Rs.40/- to make up the deposit of the rent due. The trial Court held that the failure to deposit Rs.40/ -was on account of an arithmetical error, and that if the said deposit is taken into account, the tenant be held to have complied with the requirement of deposit prescribed by the Act. Accordingly he dismissed the Eviction Petition. A revision filed by the landlord failed, whereupon he approached the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition. By its order dated 2-1-81 Reported in 1981 All Rent Cas 104 : 1981 All LJ NOC 46, the High Court allowed the writ petition (W.P. No. 8555/79) and remanded the matter to the trial Court for disposal of the eviction petition according to law in the light of the finding recorded by it. The finding recorded by the High Court was to the effect that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. This Order of the High Court was challenged by the tenant and has become final.
2. After remand the trial Court decreed the suit, in view of the fact that the only defence of the defendant based upon Section 20(4) of the Act stood negatived by the High Court. A revision filed by the tenant was dismissed. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 5714 of 1985 in the High Court of Allahabad questioning the Order of revision. At about the same time i.e., in 1985, he also filed a petition for reviewing the judgment dated 2-1-81 in Writ Petition No. 8555/79. Both the writ petition and the review petition were dismissed in limine on 21-5-1985 against which the present appeal has been preferred.
3. It may be noticed that Order of the High Court dated 2-1-1981 holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit as Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act had become final. It was sought to be reopened by the tenant by filing a review petition after a gap of more than four years but it failed. We cannot also say that the High Court was in error in dismissing the review petition in the above circumstances. Once we hold that the judgment of the High Court dated 2-1-81 is final, the tenant has practically no defence to put forward. Indeed, there was no alternative left to the Courts below other than decreeing the suit. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the other question considered by the Revisional Court, namely, the effect of demolition of the part of the premises during the Emergency and whether the same releases the tenant from the obligation to pay the entire agreed rent. There was an admitted default in paying the rent for about three years and the benefit of Section 20(4) has been denied to him. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant is granted time till 31-12-93 for vacating the premises subject to paying the agreed rent regularly and on executing the usual undertaking within two weeks from today. The landlord respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount and also any other amount deposited hitherto by the tenant.
