Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be invoked for rent deposits once an eviction suit is pending, requiring adherence to procedural rules of the ongoing legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail (i) the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 194 of 2021 (Smt. Ram Dulari and Others vs. Harshit Yadav), and (ii) the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Moradabad in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2022, whereby the revision preferred against the earlier order has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be tenants in the premises in question since long, where a tailoring shop is being run as a source of livelihood. It is stated that rent was being regularly paid and after the death of the original tenant, the petitioners continued in possession and allegedly tendered rent to the respondent–landlord, who had purchased the property in the year 2010. It is further asserted that the landlord subsequently refused to accept rent, whereafter a money order dated 19.07.2021 was sent, which was not accepted. Consequently, the petitioners instituted proceedings under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by filing an application, registered as Misc.Case No. 194 of 2021, seeking permission to deposit rent.

4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent–landlord brought on record that prior to the institution of the application under Section 30 , an S.C.C. Suit No. 41 of 2021 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent had already been instituted on 17.08.2021 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad, and notice thereof had been duly served upon the tenants. On the basis of the said fact, it was contended that the proceedings under were not maintainable.

5. The trial court, upon consideration of the material on record, including the certified copies of the S.C.C. suit and proof of service, recorded a finding that the eviction suit between the parties was already pending and, therefore, the tenants were required to deposit rent before the court where the eviction suit was pending, in accordance with law, and recourse to Section 30 was not available. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioners under was rejected by order dated25.10.2021.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision No. 21 of 2022, which has been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 13.11.2025, affirming the reasoning of the trial court and holding that once an eviction suit is pending, deposit of rent is to be made in the said proceedings and not under Section 30 of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts below have erred in law in overlooking that Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides a statutory mechanism enabling a tenant to deposit rent where the landlord refuses to accept the same, and that the pendency of an S.C.C. suit does not bar recourse to such provision.

8. It is further contended that the view taken by the courts below that rent ought to be deposited under Order XV Rule 5 CPC is misconceived, inasmuch as the said provision governs deposits during pendency of the suit, whereas Section 30 operates independently and permits deposit before the prescribed authority. 9. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether a tenant can validly invoke the provisions of of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for deposit of rent in court, in a situation where an S.C.C. suit instituted by the landlord for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in re