The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's deposit of rent under Section 30 of the Act was valid, and questioning the derivative title did not amount to denial of title.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS is tenants writ petition arising out of suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent filed by landlord-respondent No. 2 Shri Shyam Sunder, against original tenant Chandra Prakash alias chamru Ram, who died during the pendency of the suit and was survived by the original petitioners, who were four in numbers. Petitioner No. 1 has also died during pendency of this petition leaving behind only the other three petitioners as her heir and legal representatives and her name has been deleted from the array of the parties. The suit was registered as S. C. C, Suit no. 24 of 1981. Landlord-respondent No. 2 claimed that the tenanted property in dispute belonged to Murli Dasi daughter of Jhinku lal and Shrimati Murli Dasi had transferred the property in dispute to him through registered sale deed dated 18 09. 1979. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 2 gave notice about the transfer to the original tenant on 24. 10. 79 and Shrimati murli Dasi also gave notice intimating the transfer to the original tenant on 15. 10,1979 and 0. 12. 1979. It was further pleaded that in spite of said notices no rent was paid to landlord-respondent. Original tenant pleaded that the property in dispute initially belonged to jhinku Lal. who transferred the same in favour of Shri Nath Ji Maharaj (Deity), hence his daughter was not entitled to sell the property as she was not the owner Respondent No. 2 landlord countered the said assertion and stated that Jhinku Lal executed a Will in favour of the aforesaid Deity on 08. 04. 1954, however, house in dispute was not included therein and the same was gifted by him to Shrimati Murli Dasi, his daughter through gift deed dated 27. 7. 1954. It is not disputed that Jhinku Lal received the rent of the property in dispute till his life time and after his death his widow Shrimati Dukhna Devi, mother of Shrimati Murli Dasi received the rent and issued receipts. According to the tenants Jhinku Lal and Shrimati Dukhna Devi received the rent as Sarvarakars of the deity and according to the landlord, they received the rent on behalf of their daughter Shrimati Murli Dasi, as she had been married and was residing in another city along with her husband. Most of the time receipts were issued on printed proforma on which it was printed that it was in respect of rent of the house belonging to Shri Nath Ji Maharaj through sarvarakar. The explanation of landlord was that merely because receipt was issued on the printed proforma kept for the houses belonging to the Deity it can not be said that the house in dispute also belonged to Deity. According to the landlord, some receipts were issued on plain papers also not mentioning the name of the Deity. Some of such receipts have been annexed as annexures to the second Supplementary counter affidavit dated 14. 11. 2005. They pertain to different months of 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1972 issued by Shrimati Dukhna Devi.

( 3 ) IT is admitted to the landlord that no intimation of Gift deed dated 27. 7. 1954 executed by jhinku Lal in favour of his daughter Murli Dasi was given to the original tenant Chandra Prakash

( 4 ) THE tenant further pleaded that when Shrimati Dukhna Devi refused to accept the rent in 1979, he deposited the same under Section 30 of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 and continued to deposit the same till the filing of the suit.

( 5 ) THE trial court / J. S. C. C. Gorakhpur held that the property belonged to the Deity and even in the absence of a registered document the dedication would be presumed from the conduct of the original owner Jhinku Lal. For the said proposition the trial court placed reliance upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Shri G. Mahraj v. State of Rajasthan AIR1963 SC 1638 , [1964]1 SCR561. The trial court further held that as Shrimati Murli Dasi was not the owner hence she could not transfer the property to the plaintiff Trial Court further held that rent had been deposited by the t