Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's revision arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The suit for ejectment was dismissed on the ground that the tenant had complied with the condition mentioned in Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Subsection (4) provides: In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub -section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine percent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under Sub -section (1) of Section 20, the Court may in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground.
(2.) THE contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that the amount in the present case was not unconditionally deposited as the deposit had been made under protest; on this basis he has argued that the tenant was not entitled to get the benefit of Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The argument of the Learned Counsel has no merit as the Section uses the word "unconditionally" and not "without protest*'. Unconditional payment means that the amount can be paid to the landlord without any precondition being attached thereto. Conditional payment means that if a condition is fulfilled, then the payment will be made and if that condition is not fulfilled, the payment will not be made. When a person deposits money under protest, he imposes no conditions; he only shows his unwillingness to accept the other side's case, but be places no conditions on the payment of the amount to the landlord. The deposit of the money under protest cannot amount to a conditional deposit of the amount. The amount had been placed unconditionally at the disposal of the Court; it must therefore be deemed to be an unconditional deposit as contemplated by Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. There is thus no error of jurisdiction in the judgments of the courts below. It may also be noted that the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has made a statement that the entire amount, that is in deposit in the court below, may be paid to the landlord and that the Defendant neither even had nor even now any objection whatsoever to this payment. He has made a further Statement that the entire amount due upto March, 1979, shall be paid to the landlord within three months from today in case the amount has not already been paid or deposited.
(3.) IN the result, the revision is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.;