Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some error in the calculation of interest and for that reason only, entire amount which he was supposed to deposit in purported compliance of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972') could not be deposited and for such mistake, petitioner-tenant should not be made to suffer. However, he could not dispute that the total amount of interest which fell short and he did not deposit, obviously is a substantial amount which comes to around Rs. 7,000/-. That being so, it cannot be said that there was compliance of Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972 so as to entitle him to claim benefit thereunder.
(2.) No other point has been argued.
(3.) In the circumstance, I find no manifest error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.;