The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deposit made under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act should be considered valid and taken into account for the purpose of deposit under Section 20, emphasizing the intention of the tenant and the statutory effect provided under sub-section (6) of Section 30.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 4.7.2001 passed in S.C.C. No.20 of 1991, the present revision has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that the court below has misdirected itself in rejecting the deposit made under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) (for short "the Act").

3. The proceedings in the court below were initiated under Section 20 of the Act. After initiation of the proceedings, tenant was required to deposit the amount as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act on the date of first hearing. The tenant proceeded to deposit the amount on the date of first hearing along with the written statement to the tune of Rs.30,700/-. Thereafter the parties were allowed to lead evidence and the case was heard and decided. The Judge, Small Causes Court proceeded to allow the application under Section 20 of the Act by holding therein that the deposit made by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act was not a valid deposit and was not in the competent court and hence, it cannot be taken note of.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the court below has misdirected itself in not appreciating the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act. Submission is that while considering the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act, intention of the tenant has to be seen and if there was any objection in regard to the jurisdiction, then the court itself ought to have refused to deposit the rent or in the alternative, after receipt of the notice, the opposite party could have raised objection before the court concerned where the deposit was made. It is submitted that merely because the deposit was made in the court of Munsif South, that could not be a ground for excluding the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was a refusal on the part of the landlord and the tenancy was terminated and after termination of the tenancy there was no option with the tenant but to deposit the amount under Section 30 of the Act. So far the question of deposit in respect of water tax is concerned, the same has been deposited, which is evident from the schedule appended along with the written statement. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon a judgment of the apex Court rendered in the case of Kailash Chandra and another v. Mukundi Lal and others, [2002 (20) LCD 538 : 2002 (1) ARC 342 : 2002 SCFBRC 213] to give force to the argument that the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act has to be taken into consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has submitted that since the deposit was made in the wrong court, therefore, the same could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of deposit as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. It is also submitted that the water tax was not deposited, which was later on deposited by the revisionist and there was no refusal from the side of the landlord and hence, the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act was not a valid deposit as contemplated under law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. The sole question which falls for consideration is as to whether the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deposit under Section 20 of the Act.

8. It is apparent from the order dated 25.1.1985 passed in Misc. Case No.304 of 1984, Co-operative Bank, Branch Naka Hindola Vs. Rameshwar Hawelia, that tenancy of the revisionist was terminated and thereafter refusal was also there in regard to the receipt of rent and hence, the deposit was accepted and was allowed to be made continuously.

9. For convenience, the order dated 25.1.1985 is quoted below:-

"Called out. None responds.

O.P. is served.

Perused the record. It appears that the O.P. had