The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application, emphasizing that there was no basis for restricting the plaintiff from withdrawing the deposited amount.

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 11.1.2001, Annexure-4 to the writ petition and 4.9.2002, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner-tenant No. 12-Ga wherein it is prayed that some restriction may be put on the plaintiff in withdrawing the amount deposited by petitioner in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This application has been rejected by the order dated 11.1.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 11.1.2001, which was dismissed by the revisional court affirming the order of the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner has doubt without disputing as to whether the plaintiff is landlord of the accommodation in dispute the amount deposited by the petitioner in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, the respondent should be allowed to withdraw the amount only after putting some restriction. In case the petitioner deposits the amount in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, it is not open to the petitioner to pray as has been done by means of this writ petition.

3. The trial court as well as the revisional court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate any error in the order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court.

4. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.