Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review petition.

2. This writ petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by me through judgment and order dated 8.9.2005. This review petition has been filed by the tenant petitioner seeking review of the said judgment. The suit for eviction was filed by landlords respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of my judgment dated 8.9.2005 are quoted below:

“Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 75/- per month. Courts below have also found in favour of the tenant that under written agreement tenant was liable to pay only half of the water tax and he was entitled to adjustment in rent the excess water tax paid by him. Tenant through receipt exhibit A-13 deposited Rs. 146.64 as tax to the Municipal Board. Courts below held that tenant’s liability was only to the extent of half of the taxes i.e. Rs. 73.32 hence he was entitled to adjustment in rent of the tax paid by him on behalf of the landlord i.e. Rs. 73.32.

Tenant had deposited the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Courts below have found that the deposit of rent by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act till 6.10.1984 was valid and amounted to payment to the landlord hence he was not defaulter till that period. Thereafter landlords served a notice upon the tenant on 20.9.1984 demanding direct payment of tax. Inspite of service of the said notice tenant deposited five months rent (i.e. from 7.10.1984 to 6.3.1985) in the case under Section 30 of the Act on 5.1.1985. This deposit has been held by both the Courts below to be invalid. In my opinion the view taken by both the Courts below is quite correct in law. Tenant is not entitled to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act after receiving the notice from the landlord intimating the intention of the landlord to accept the rent directly. Thereafter landlords sent another notice on 13.5.1985 demanding rent and terminating the tenancy. In response to the said notice tenant remitted the rent from 7.3.1985 till 6.7.1985. The said rent was refused by the landlord as it was in complete. In the aforesaid notice rent from 7.3.1982 had been demanded. The argument of the tenant that notice was invalid as rent which was not even due had been demanded has rightly been repelled by both the Court below. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gokaran Singh v. Ist A.D.J., Hardoi and others, 2000 (1) ARC 653 (FB), such a notice is not invalid.

Both the Courts below held that as deposit of rent by the tenant in the case under Section 30 of the Act from 7.10.1984 to 6.3.1985 (5 months) made on 5.1.1985 was invalid hence tenant was defaulter in the payment of the rent. Even if the amount of Rs. 73.32 paid as water tax by the tenant on behalf of landlord is deducted still tenant will remain defaulter for four months which is sufficient for eviction under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. Apart from it tenant had also become defaulter for further two months i.e. from 7.3.1985 till 6.5.1985 when notice dated 13.5.1985 was served upon him. Landlord was fully justified for refusing to accept the money order as total rent due had not been sent through the said money order.”

3. The first argument of learned counsel for the tenant petitioner applicant is that in the first notice dated 28.9.1984, copy of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition the demand was for payment of arrears of rent (charha hua kiraya), hence it could not be treated to be a notice under Section 30 of the Act signifying the willingness to accept the rent in future. It has further been argued that through the said notice tenancy had been sought to be terminated and tenant was directed to vacate the house in dispute on the expiry of 30 days from the date of notice.

4. The second argument is that the tenant had deposited house and water tax for the entire house thrice while the Courts below took into consideration only one deposit of Rs. 146.64. In this regard it has been argued that two