JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - Three points were urged before me on behalf of the petitioner by Sri Chandra Prakash, Advocate. Firstly, that rent for 1 months alone was due from the petitioner-tenant. Therefore, no decree for ejectment could be passed against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made an incorrect statement. I have checked up the impugned judgments. There is not the remotest reference about any such pica raised at any stage. In the second place it was urged that fresh notice was necessary after the enforcement of the U.P. Urban Buildings. (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. U.P. Act No. of 1972) and no decree for ejectment on the basis of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served prior to the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, could be passed. There is absolutely no mention of this plea any where in the impugned judgments. Moreover, a fresh plea cannot be raised in the writ petition for the first time. The third point raised was that the petitioner had made deposits under Section 30 of the said Act and therefore, he was protected by Section 39 of the Act and no decree of ejectment could be passed against him. Sections 30 and 39 of the Act are two distinct provisions and deposits made under Section 30 could not be availed of for invoking the benefit of Section 39. 2. Thus, there is no force in this writ petition, and is dismissed.