The main legal point established is that rent deposited by the tenant after appearing in the suit for eviction cannot be considered a valid deposit under Section 30 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants writ petition. Suit of the landlord respondent No. 3 filed against tenants has been decreed by both the courts below inter alia on the ground of default. The main question involved in this writ petition is regarding validity of deposit made by tenant under Section 30 of u. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

( 2 ) TENANTS instituted Misc. Case No, 137 of 1993 under Section 30 of the Act in which rent from january. 1987 to December, 1993 was deposited on 9. 4. 1993. Thereafter on 25. 1. 1994 rent for the entire year of 1994 was deposited and on 5. 1. 1995 rent of 1995 from January to December was deposited. Thereafter the rent from January, 1996 to December 1996 was deposited on 24. 2. 1996 in the eviction suit giving rise to the instant writ petition instituted before J. S. C. C. , varanasi (Suit No. 113 of 1993 ). The tenant had appeared before J. S. C. C. on 2. 7. 1994. The deposit of rent on 5. 1. 1995 from January, 1995 to December, 1995 under Section 30 after appearing in the suit for eviction cannot be said to be a valid deposit.

( 3 ) THE admitted rate of rent is Rs. 17. 50 per month. The landlord sent notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent from January 1987 to January 1993. The notice was sent on 27. 2. 1993, which was served upon the tenants 6n 12. 3. 1993. The tenants sent reply to the notice on 6. 4. 1993. The tenants pleaded that even though they were not defaulters and entire rent had been paid however as landlord had not issued any receipt hence after receiving notice the tenants remitted the entire rent from January 1987 to December 1993 (Rs. 1,480) through money order which was refused. In the suit dispute of extent of accommodation was also raised. The landlord had also pleaded that apart from default tenants were also liable to ejectment on the ground of sub-letting.

( 4 ) THE trial court held that tenant could not prove that landlord refused to accept the money order as they did not examine the postman and even in his own oral statement one of the tenants stated that at the time when money order was refused by the landlord he was not present. The trial court also recorded finding of subletting in favour of the landlord. The J. S. C. C. , Varanasi decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent etc. through Judgment and decree dated 19. 2. 2001. The tenant preferred a revision before District Judge, Varanasi under Section 25 of p. S. C. C. Act numbered as S. C. C. Revision No. 32 of 2001. The revisional court/a. D. J. Court no. 12, Varanasi confirmed the findings of the trial court on all issues. The revisional court further held that as no notice of deposit of rent under Section 30 was sent to the landlord as required by Rule 21 hence it was not valid. The revision was consequently dismissed on 21. 5. 2002.

( 5 ) EVEN if the defence taken by the tenants petitioners that they deposited the amount under section 30 after refusal of money order by landlord is taken to be correct still they will be liable to ejectment as the rent of January, 1995 to December, 1995 deposited by them under Section 30 on 5. 1. 1995 cannot be taken to be a valid deposit as much prior to that date i. e. , on 2. 7. 1994 they had appeared in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition. After knowledge of pendency of suit for ejectment, tenant cannot continue to deposit the rent under Section 30 as held by me in writ Petition No. 19656 of 2003, decided on 21. 5. 2003. In view of this, there is no need to record findings on other aspects.

( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed,

( 7 ) HOWEVER, tenants petitioners are granted one year time to vacate the property in dispute provided that within one month from today they file an undertaking before the J. S. C. C. to the effect that on or before expiry of the aforesaid period of one year they would willingly vacate and handover vacant possession of the property in dispute to the landlord respondent.