The obligation of the tenant to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act when the landlord refuses to accept it, and the liability of the tenant for water tax and costs of the suit.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner-tenant took the shop, in dispute, in 1963 on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/ -. Laxmi Narain- landlord died and thereafter his son Mahesh Chandra became landlord and rent was being paid to him.

3. Case set up by the petitioner-tenant is that the landlord refused to accept rent for December 1983, January and February, 1984, so rent was sent through money order at the correct address of the landlord, which was refused by him. The rent for December 1983, January and February 1984, was again sent to the landlord by money order dated 28-3-1984 but it was refused. The rent for the aforesaid three months was sent for the third time by money order which was again refused by the landlord and he did not accept the money order.

4. The petitioner in the circumstance filed an application under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Eviction and Rent) Act, 1972 for depositing rent in Court from 3- 12-1983 to 2-8- 1984, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 107 of 1984. This application was allowed by Munsif, Koil, Aligarh vide order dated 17-1-1985 and rent up to September, 1985 was deposited by the petitioner in the Court.

5. A notice dated 19-11-1985 was sent by the landlord through Sri S. N. Sharma, Advocate demanding rent from December, 1983 which is alleged to have been remitted by him through money order dated 26-11-1985 by the petitioner who also replied to the notice of the landlord dated 19-11-1985 stating therein that rent was also tendered to the landlord which was refused and hence was deposited in Court in Misc. case No. 107 of 1984, which he may withdraw. It is stated that the landlord refused to accept money order sent on 26-11-1985 towards rent, hence the rent was tendered to Sri S. N. Sharma, Counsel for the landlord on 4-12- 1985 but he too refused to accept the same on behalf of the landlord. The petitioner remitted the rent for the months of October, November and December, 1985 again on 20-12- 1985 to Sri S. N. Sharma, Advocate for the landlord, who again refused to accept the same.

6. The landlord sent a second notice dated 10-4-1986 through Sri S. N. Sharma, Advocate demanding rent from 3-12-1983 which was replied by him on 7-5-1986 repeating his stand that the entire rent had been deposited in proceedings under Section 30 (1) of the Act in Misc. Case No. 107 of 1984.

7. The petitioner subsequently also sent rent from 1-10-1985 to 30-4-1986 and water tax through money order dated 8-5-1986 for period October 1985 to April 1986 amounting to Rs. 490/- to the landlord which was not accepted by him.

8. In this backdrop an application was filed by the landlord which was registered as case No. 69 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif, Koil, Aligarh for recall of the order dated 17-1-1985 passed by the Munsif Koil in proceedings under Section 30 (1) of the Act. The petitioner filed his objection on 29-8-1986 to the aforesaid application. The application of the landlord was allowed by the Munsif, Aligarh on the same day vide order dated 29-8-1996 and the case was posted for hearing.

9. It appears that the application of the petitioner under Section 30 (1) of the Act was allowed vide judgment and order dated 27-5-1988 and the petitioner allegedly continued to deposit rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act in Misc. Case No. 107 of 1984 and rent till December, 1989.

10. Thereafter, the landlord sent third notice dated 6-12-1989 claiming rent from 3-12-1984 and water tax from 1-4-1986 at the rate of 7% of the rent amounting to Rs. 194. 90 per month. In his reply dated 19-12-1989, the petitioner denied the liability asserting that notice was illegal as no rent was due. Thereupon, the landlord filed suit No. 27 of 1990 in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh in which 9-3-1990 was fixed as the date of first hearing.

11. It is claimed by the petitioner that he had deposited Rs. 450/- which included costs of the suit and water charges etc. , unde