Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Pallavi Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner was the tenant of the disputed premises. The petitioner had filed a Misc. Case No. 162 of 1981, Babu Ram Saxena v. Kishan Chand Kausar purporting to be under section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (in short the "Act") seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court on the basis of an alleged refusal of some money-orders by the Landlord. The concerned court granted permission to the petitioner to deposit the rent under section 30(1) of the Act. The petitioner continued to deposit the rent under section 30 of the Act.
(3.) The record of the case indicates that the respondent through his counsel sent a notice to the petitioner on 14.06.1995 by registered post and also to the counsel of the petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay the entire arrears of rent and taxes and was also called upon to pay future rent regularly to the landlord. The said notice was replied to by the petitioner. He continued to deposit the rent under section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No.162 of 1981 despite the receipt of notice dated 14.06.1995.;