Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.12.1988 passed by the revisional Court. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner Shri Bihari Ashram, through its Manager Shri Om Prakash, filed S.C.C. suit No. 39 of 1983 for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the defendant -respondents on the allegation that the defendant -respondents were tenants. They failed to pay arrears of rent. A notice dated 23.8.1982 was sent demanding arrears of rent but the notice was not complied with. The tenant contested the suit. One of the pleas was that the defendants had deposited the amount in Court under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act). The Judge Small Cause Court recorded a finding that the tenants failed to prove that the deposit of the rent under Section 30 of the Act was valid. The suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages was allowed, by Judge Small Causes Court on 12.8.1988. The landlord petitioner filed revision against this order. The Revisional Authority set aside the judgment of the trial Court vide order dated 9.12.1988 on the finding that the defendants had made the deposit under Section 30 of the Act. Section 30(1) of the Act provides that if any person claiming to be a tenant of building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it.
(2.) THE Revisional Court recorded a finding that the amount was deposited in the name of Om Prakash who was acting as Manager and, therefore, the deposit in his name shall be treated as deposit in the name of Shri Bihari Ashram. The Revisional Court did not examine as to when the notice was given. The deposit under Section 30 of the Act after the receipt of the notice will be invalid. Consequently, it has further to record a finding as to whether the landlord had ever refused to accept the rent. A tenant is not entitled to deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act unless it is proved that the landlord has refused to accept the rent. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 9.12.1988 is hereby quashed. As the matter relates to the question of facts, it is remanded to the Judge, Small Causes Court to decide the questions of fact in accordance with law possibly within four months. The parties shall bear their owns costs.;