The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper evidence of rent deposit and the landlord's refusal to accept it under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.

1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Kiran Kumar Arora, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 50 of 2009 and the order dated 4.8.2017 passed by the revisional Court in SCC Revision No. 82 of 2011.

3. A suit for rent and eviction in respect of shop no. 47, Sadar Bazar, Meerut Cantt., was allowed, against which the tenant (petitioner herein) preferred a revision, which too was dismissed upholding the order passed by the trial Court.

4. The facts of the case, in brief are that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in question. His father Wajeer Chand was the original tenant and after his death the petitioner along with other proforma respondent inherited the tenancy. The shop is old and is covered by U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The suit was filed on the ground that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and has not paid rent after 19.10.1984. It was stated that even after the direction of the Court in Misc. Case No. 354 of 1984 filed under Section 30(1) of the Act, no amount was paid to the landlord (respondent no. 1 herein) and therefore, tenant is liable for eviction. Written statement was filed by the tenant on the ground that on being refused to accept the rent, the same was being deposited by father of the petitioner Wajeer Chand in Misc. Case No. 354 of 1984 under Section 30(1) of the Act wherein the landlord appeared and filed his objection and stated that he is ready to accept the rent and it is on that basis the aforesaid Misc. Case was decided finally on 2.8.1987. It was contended that the landlord again refused to accept the rent and as such, when the money orders sent by the tenant were returned, he again started depositing the rent in Misc. Case No. 351 of 1989 filed under Section 30(1) of the Act and the rent upto October, 2009 has been deposited and as such, there is no default in depositing the rent. In support of his case, the tenant filed copies of tender of deposit made from 1983 to October, 2009 in Misc. Case No. 354 of 1984 and Misc. Case No. 351 of 1980. The other evidence in the shape of affidavits etc. was also filed by the tenant. The suit was decreed by the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the trial Court, against which revision was preferred by the tenant, which was dismissed by the revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 4.8.2017.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that the Court below has failed to consider that the rejection of the application for withdrawal of money filed by the landlord in Misc. Case No. 351 of 1989 vide order dated 15.11.2010 is contrary to record, inasmuch as the tenant has filed copies of the tender of deposit to demonstrate that the rent was duly deposited by him. It was next contended that the Courts below have committed cross mistake in holding that the tenant has committed fraud as he was depositing the rent in non-existing case no. 351 of 1989. Submission is that the Courts below completely failed to consider that unless the tender is passed by the Court concerned, the amount cannot be deposited in the bank with the accountant and as such, there was a valid deposit of rent and it cannot be said that the tenant was at fault even if the application for withdrawal of the amount filed by the landlord was rejected. It was submitted that since the entire tenders of deposit are part of the record clearly mentioning case number as well as the seal of the Court, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner has committed any fraud or has not deposited the rent. The deposit was made as per the provisions of General Rule (Civil) and thus, the findings are absolutely wrong and contrary to the record. It was further submitted that in any view of the matter even if t