Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This is tenants’ writ petition arising out of suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent instituted by original landlord respondent No. 2 Ami Chand (since deceased and survived by legal representatives). Eviction was sought on the ground of default. Suit was registered as suit (SCC Suit) No. 847 of 1983. Additional JSCC, Kanpur Nagar held that there was no default and tenants were entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Ultimately through judgment and decree dated 29.5.1989 suit for ejectment was dismissed and suit for the withdrawal of deposited rent was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree original landlord respondent No. 2 filed SCC Revision No. 88 of 1989. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, refusing to decree the suit for eviction and decreed the suit for eviction also through judgment and order dated 2.8.1990 hence this writ petition by the tenants.

2. Property in dispute is a shop. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 75/- per month.

3. Notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was given on 18/20.4.1983. Copy of the said notice is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In Para 4 of the notice, it was stated that rent was due since 1.12.1982 to 15.4.1983, amounting to Rs. 337.50. The said notice was replied by the tenants on 29.4/3.5.1983. In the said reply notice, it was stated that rent of December 1982 had been sent through money order which was refused by the landlord hence it was deposited before Musif in Case No. 4/70 of 1983 under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that in the said case rent till.31.3.1983 had been deposited. In Para 7 of the reply notice, it was further stated that even though no rent was due against the tenants, however by way of abundant precaution rent from 1.12.1982 till 30.4.1983 amounting to Rs. 375/- was being sent through draft, which was annexed along with the reply notice.

4. Thereafter suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent giving rise to the instant writ petition was filed in the year 1983.

5. Tenants deposited the rent in Munsifs court under Section 30 of the Act up till 31.8.1988 (suit giving rise to the instant writ petition decided on 29.5.1989). Deposit under Section 30 of the Act after receiving notice dated 18/20.4.1983 was illegal. After receiving notice tenant is not entitled to continue to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act. Further as held by a Division bench in Haider Abbas v. A.D.J., 2006(1) Alld. Daily Judgments 197 deposit of rent after receiving summons of suit for eviction is also illegal.

6. The draft of Rs. 375/- was not encashed by the landlord. Landlord took up the case that he did not receive the draft. Tenants filed bank certificate to show that the said draft was got prepared. There is no dispute that it was not encashed. Landlord also denied that the rent of December 1982 was tendered to him through money order or directly.

7. As far as the question of payment of water tax is concerned, both the courts below rightly held that it could not be considered as in the notice no demand for the same had been made. This finding is quite correct.

8. However in respect of receipt of draft of Rs. 375/-, trial court did not record any categorical finding. Trial court held that there was no default and tenants were entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act as they had deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act.

9. Revisional Court did not specifically disbelieve the assertion of the tenants that they had remitted the rent through draft of Rs. 375/-. In respect of the said draft only two things have been stated by the Revisional Court one is that the assertion of the tenants that they sent the amount through draft clearly amounted to admission that they had not paid the said rent earlier hence the assertion that they had sent the rent of December 1982 through money order stood di