IMPORTANT POINT
Benefit of deposit u/s. 30(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 can be given to tenant u/s. 20(4) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-This appeal has been preferred by the tenant of the premises in question against the Judgment and Order passed by Allahabad High Court dismissing appellant s Writ Petition, filed against the order for his eviction passed in revision, on the ground of default in payment of rent.

2. The Landlords who are respondent Nos. 1-3 in the present appeal filed a suit for eviction of the appellant in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Jaunpur. The ground for eviction on account of subletting by the appellant/tenant, was not accepted by the Trial Court. However, it was found that the appellant/tenant was in arrears of rent, but decree of eviction was not passed, since the appellant paid the amount due on the first date of hearing in accordance with Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (to be referred as Act). The Revisional Court, however, upset the order passed by the Trial Court and passed decree of eviction on account of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of subletting. The said order was upheld in the Writ Petition in so far it related to default in payment of rent. The High Court however held that the Revisional Court was wrong in substituting its own finding of fact regarding subletting, in exercise of its revisional powers. Therefore, finding of the Trial Court on the point of subletting stood restored.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have confined their submissions before us relating to the question as to whether the defendant-appellant had cleared the arrears of rent or not. In this connection, it may be indicated that according to the respondent-plaintiff, the rent of the accommodation in question was Rs. 18/- per month. The tenant stopped payment of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1971, but an amount of Rs. 443.50 paise was claimed on account of arrears of rent w.e.f. 15.12.1973 to 4.1.1975 and an amount of Rs. 240.50 paise on account of mesne profit w.e.f. 5.1.1975 till 15.12.1976. It is further averred in the plaint that rent for the period w.e.f. 1.6.1971 to 15.12.1973 was not being claimed having become barred by time. According to the appellant-defendant, he had deposited all the amount due in the court on the first date of hearing complying with Section 20(4) of the Act and prior to that he had deposited the rent under Section 30(2) of the Act. The property in question was on lease with the landlord, granted by Municipal Board. On expiry of the period of lease in the year 1971, the Municipal Board issued notice demanding rent from the defendant. Therefore, the defendant-appellant resorted to the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Act and started depositing the rent in the court. Thus taking into account all the amounts deposited, nothing remained due to be paid to the plaintiff, therefore, decree of eviction could not be passed.

4. The High Court came to the conclusions that benefit of deposit under Section 30(2) of the Act could not be given to the tenant under Section 20(4) of the act and the tenant has to clear off all the dues as standing against him including the amount of arrears which may, though have become barred by time. So far latter proposition is concerned, the High Court s view cannot be faulted with. In regard to the amount deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act, the High Court has held as follows:-

"In view of the fact that the amount of rent which was deposited by the tenant under section 30(2) of the Act, on a plain reading of section 20(4) could not he deducted or adjusted while making compliance of the requirements contemplated under sub-section (4) as the provision makes reference only to adjustment of rent deposited under Section 30(1) and not to deposits made under section 30(2) of the Act, the finding of the trial court extending benefit to the tenant of section 20(4) of taking into account the rent deposited by the tenant under section 30(2) suffered from an apparent error of law, which error has been corrected by the R