JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 27.3.1998 whereby the suit for ejectment against the petitioner was decreed and the order of the revisional court dated 3.11.1998 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid judgment.
2. The land lord-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed Suit No. 380 of 1983, Smt. Shanti Devi and others v. Ayodhya Nath Dubey and another, against the petitioner and one Visbwanath for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegation that the petitioner was their tenant. He was in arrears of rent for the period 25.8.1977 to 24.2.1983. The plaintiff-respondents sent composite notice on 3.3.1983 to the defendant-petitioner demanding arrears of rent and terminating his tenancy. The notice was served by refusal on 10.3.1983. The petitioner did not pay arrears of rent as demanded by the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the petitioner had sub-let the accommodation in question to Anil Kumar, defendant No. 2.
3. The petitioner filed written statement. He alleged that the landlords have refused to accept the rent and thereafter he made deposits under Section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He denied that he sub-let the disputed accommodation to the defendant No. 2. He also denied that he received any notice sent by the plaintiff-respondents. The trial court recorded a finding that the petitioner was served with a notice but he failed to pay the arrears of rent as demanded by the plaintiffs. The deposits made by him under Section 30 of the Act was invalid. The suit was decreed on these findings. The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act and such deposit was illegally held as invalid.
4. Admittedly the petitioner deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act on 14.9.1977 for the period 25.11.1975 to 24.8.1977 amounting to Rs. 131.25. He thereafter deposited the rent for the period 25.8.1977 to 24.3.1978 on 4.3.1988. On the deposit being made, a notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondents. They filed objection on 24.2.1978 stating that they had never refused to accept the rent from the petitioner and secondly they are always prepared to accept the rent. The Munsif City passed an order that the applicant (petitioner) is allowed to continue to deposit the rent at his own risk, The petitioner thereafter continued to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the petitioner had deposited the amount under Section 30 (1) of the Act and was permitted to continue to deposit the rent, such deposit should be treated as valid unless the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it. Section 30 (i) of the Act reads as under :
"If any person claiming to be a tenant of a 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."
5. This section contemplates thai the tenant can make deposit under Section 30 (1) of the Act when the landlord refuses to accept the rent and if he has refused to accept the rent, the tenant will be justified in depositing the rent in Court unless the landlord signifies has willingness in writing for accepting the rent. The petitioner was bound to prove that the landlords had refused to accept the rent which caused him to deposit the amount under Section 30 (1) of the Act. The petitioner failed to prove this fact. Secondly, when the petitioner made deposit under Section 30 (1) of the Act and on a notice issued to the landlord-respondents. they submitted an objection categorically stating that they never refused to accept rent and further they were always prepared to accept it. The willingness was clearly indicated in the objection filed by the landlords, it was not necessary for the landlords to give a separate notice in writing to the tenant-petitioner.
6. The notice to the tenant of willingness of landlord to accept the rent in a proceeding under Section 30 of the Act may be in any form. The words "notice in writing" under Section 30 (1) of the Act cannot be given a restricted meaning as to give a separate notice by the landlord. The notice may be given by submitting an objection in that proceeding or in any other manner by which the tenant comes to know that the landlord has expressed his willingness to accept the rent. The deposit under Section 30 contemplates that the landlord has refused to accept the rent but once the landlord has expressed his willingness to accept the rent, there is no justification for the tenant thereafter to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act.
7. In Mohammadoo Khan v. Ghulam Rasool AIR 1972 All 441. the Court held that where the landlord gives notice demanding arrears of rent and after service of such notice if the tenant continues to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act, that, deposit is invalid as the landlord, by demanding the rent, has expressed his willingness to accept the rent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision Sobran Singh v. Prakash Chandra Cupta. 1996 JRJ 471, wherein the Court remanded the case to find out as to whether the landlord had signified the willingness to accept the rent. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. The tenant must first prove that at any point of time, the landlord has refused to accept the rent and if it is found that the landlord has refused to accept the rent, he is entitled to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it.
9. As found above, the landlord never refused to accept the rent and further on deposit being made by the petitioner, they made it clear by filing objection that they were prepared to accept the rent, the question of further notice being given by them did not arise and the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act Was invalid.
10. In view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.