- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of suit for ejectment on the ground of default filed by him against tenant/respondent No. 3 being case No. 12 of 1978. The suit was dismissed by Additional. J. S. C. C. Kanpur through judgment and decree dated 4-12-1980. Landlord filed a revision against the same under Section 25 P. S. C. C. Act, being S. C. C. Revision No. 16 of 1981. The said revision has also been dismissed by IX- Additional District Judge, Kanpur through judgment and order dated 30-3-1982. THIS writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment and decree. Notice sent to respondent No. 3 has returned with the endorsement that he has left without any address. The only point involved in this case is whether tenant was entitled to the adjustment of the amount deposited by him under Section 30 of U. P. Act, No. 13 of 1972 for extending the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The revisional Court has held that," ordinarily the deposit under Section 30 of the Act, is made for the benefit of the landlord and even if the deposit is invalid then also the plaintiff can withdraw the amount on proper application. " For the said proposition reliance has been made upon some authorities of this Court. However, in view of the Full Bench authority reported in 2000 (1) ARC 653 an invalid deposit under Section 30 cannot confer any right upon the tenant for its adjustment. In the instant case application of the tenant under Section 30 of the Act, for depositing the rent was dismissed in default. In such situation the amount could not be paid to the landlord and the Munsarim rightly made such objection/observation on the withdrawal application of the landlord. The Courts below have wrongly held that in any case if the landlord had drawn the attention of the learned Munsif to the said report of the Munsarim, then the Munsif would have set that aside and directed payment of the amount deposited by the tenant to the landlord. Under Rule 21 (4) of the Rules framed under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 application under Section 30 is to be rejected under certain conditions and thereafter the amount deposited is to be refunded to the applicant i. e. tenant. The point is directly covered by an authority of this Court reported in 1981 ARC page 222. Accordingly the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Writ petition is allowed, suit of the plaintiff/landlord (case S. C. C. Suit No. 12 of 1978) for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent along with mesne profit and future damages till the date of eviction in favour of the landlord is decreed. Petition allowed. .;