4 . In defence, the arrears of rent were denied on the ground that an agreement to sale was executed in between the respondent and the erstwhile landlord and certain amounts were paid as advance, which was bound to be adjusted. It also bears from the record that in pursuance to an agreement to sale executed by the erstwhile landlord in favour of the respondents on 07.02.1989, a suit was filed for specific performance being Suit No.282 of 1994 which was decreed in favour of the respondents. Against which, an appeal was preferred by the erstwhile landlord, which was partly allowed. The relief for specific performance was denied, however, directions were issued for refund of Rs.40,000/- taken as advance at the time of execution of the agreement to sale. It was also claimed by the respondent that an amount of Rs.36,600/- was paid through cheque on 17.05.2004 thus it was claimed that the respondent was entitled for the set off an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.36,600/-, which if calculated would in excess of the amount due. The trial court had rejected the said contention on the ground that in terms of the mandate of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, it was incumbent to deposit the entire amount for claiming the benefit and for escaping the decree of eviction, however, as the entire amounts were not deposited, the benefit could not be granted. The revisional court was of the view that the trial court had not considered the two amounts allegedly paid by the respondents and thus the matter was remanded.
