First hearing under tenant protection law means the court-fixed hearing date, not summons service, and timely deposit secures relief.

A tenant cannot be denied discretionary relief under Article 136 merely because of alleged lack of clean hands where handwritten additions in the application were treated as amplifications of typed averments and not a misleading fabrication. For Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, "first hearing" means the date fixed by the Court for hearing and application of mind to the suit, not the date of service of summons. As the arrears were deposited before the earliest court-fixed date for the defendant's first step, the statutory condition was satisfied and the tenant was entitled to protection against eviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant could be denied discretionary relief under Article 136 on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands; (ii) whether, for the purposes of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, the "first hearing" meant the date of service of summons or the date fixed by the Court for the defendant to take the first step in the suit; and (iii) whether the appellant had complied with Section 20(4) by depositing the arrears before the relevant date.

Issue (i): whether the appellant could be denied discretionary relief under Article 136 on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands.

Analysis: The application filed by the appellant contained handwritten additions, but those additions were treated as amplifications of the typed averments already made. The handwritten portions were also initialled, which supported the view that they were not a fabrication devised to mislead the Court. The preliminary objection therefore did not justify refusal of relief on this ground.

Conclusion: The objection based on lack of clean hands was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether, for the purposes of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, the "first hearing" meant the date of service of summons or the date fixed by the Court for the defendant to take the first step in the suit.

Analysis: Section 20(4) conditions the tenant's protection on payment or deposit at the first hearing, and the Explanation defines "first hearing" by reference to the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons. Reading this with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court held that the expression refers to the date on which the Court is to apply its mind to the pleadings and frame issues, not merely the date of service of summons and not the defendant's date for filing a written statement as such. Where the Court fixes dates for written statement and hearing, those dates govern compliance with Section 20(4).

Conclusion: The "first hearing" is the date fixed by the Court for the hearing and application of mind to the controversy, not the date of service of summons.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant had complied with Section 20(4) by depositing the arrears before the relevant date.

Analysis: The Court had, on the appellant's application, cancelled the earlier hearing date and granted time for filing the written statement and for the hearing. The full arrears were deposited on 5 March 1984, before the earliest date fixed by the Court for the defendant's first step in the suit. On that basis, the statutory condition for relief against eviction stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The appellant had complied with Section 20(4) and was entitled to its benefit.

Final Conclusion: The tenant was found entitled to statutory protection, the eviction decree could not stand, and the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The Court also indicated that the rent should be revised by agreement or, failing that, in accordance with the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, "first hearing" means the date fixed by the Court for hearing and application of mind to the suit, and compliance with the deposit requirement must be tested against that court-fixed date rather than the mere service of summons.

---