JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH.:---The petitioner filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar for possession of the land Survey No. 447 admeasuring 11 acres and 34 gunthas of village Ambad, district Aurangabad, against the respondents who is in possession of the land as a tenant, under section 32(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The application was filed on the ground that the respondent-tenant failed to pay the rent for three years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. This application was filed on April 22, 1968, after serving the respondent with a notice dated March 23, 1968, terminating the tenancy of the respondent on the ground that he had committed default in payment of the rent for three years as mentioned above. The Tahsildar granted this application and directed restoration of possession of the land, to the petitioner-landlord. In appeal preferred by the tenant this order of the tahsildar was set aside and the petitioners application for possession was rejected. The landlord, therefore, approached the Revenue Tribunal in revision. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector holding that the respondent was not a defaulter and also that the notice of termination of tenancy was bad in law and, in ay event, the application filed on April 22, 1968, was pre-mature. 3. This order of the Revenue Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is not in dispute that the tenant deposited in the office of the Tahsildar rent equivalent to five times of the assessment for the year 1964-65 on December 19, 1966. He also deposited in the Tahsildars office equivalent to four times of the assessment for the year 1965-66 on December 29, 1966. Similarly, he also deposited rent equivalent to four times of the assessment for the year 1966-67 on March 30, 1967. According to the petitioner, he gave oral intimation of the default for the year 1964-65; while for the subsequent two year written intimations thereof were given on September 21, 1966, and June 12, 1967, respectively. 5. It was urged by Mrs. According to the petitioner, he gave oral intimation of the default for the year 1964-65; while for the subsequent two year written intimations thereof were given on September 21, 1966, and June 12, 1967, respectively. 5. It was urged by Mrs. Kanade, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the tenant was bound to deposit the rent five times equivalent to the assessment under the provisions of sections 11 of the Act and admittedly he had not deposited the requisite amount for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. She did not dispute that the respondent had paid the land revenue for these two years, but her contention is that the tenant had no business to pay the land revenue as the landlord was liable to pay the same and it was obligatory on the tenant to deposit the amount at the rate of five times of the assessment, She also submitted that there being no dispute about the rent being raised, the provisions of section 11 were not applicable and the tenant was required to pay the agreed rent of Rs. 200/- per year. Lastly, she submitted that the notice of termination of the tenancy was valid and the petitioner was entitled to an order of eviction. 6. Section 11 over-riders an agreement to pay higher rent and it is no longer in dispute that the maximum rent payable by the tenant is five times the assessment so far as the land in dispute in concerned. The agreement to pay Rs. 200/- being clearly the violation of mandatory provisions of section 11, it is unenforciable and the landlord will not be entitled to recover rent more than five times of the assessment. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention that the tenant was bound to pay the agreed rent in this case. It is not disputed that the petitioner was bound to pay the agreed rent in this case. It is not disputed that the petitioner was bound to pay the assessment and had not paid the same. Under the circumstances, the tenant was required to pay the land revenue for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. He was, therefore, justified in depositing the rent at the rate of four times of the assessment after deducting the land revenue paid by him. It is, therefore, clear that there is no default for any of these three years. 7. Under the circumstances, the tenant was required to pay the land revenue for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. He was, therefore, justified in depositing the rent at the rate of four times of the assessment after deducting the land revenue paid by him. It is, therefore, clear that there is no default for any of these three years. 7. Notice of termination given by the landlord is dated March 23, 1968 and the application has been filed on April 22, 1968. Under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 19, no tenancy of the land can be terminated unless the landlord gives six months notice in writing intimating his decision to terminating the tenancy as well as the grounds for such determination. 8. The petitioner, therefore, could not have filed in application within the period of six months. Even the notice itself does not terminate the tenancy on the expiry of the period of six months. However, the petitioner informed the tenant that the tenancy was terminated after the expiry of 15 days. Having regard to these facts. Not only that there is no valid termination of the tenancy, but the application filed within six months is also premature, even on the assumption that the notice is valid. 9. The Revenue Tribunal was, therefore, justified in confirming the order of the Deputy Collector and rejecting the petitioners application for restoration of the possession. The petition, therefore, must fail rule discharged with no order as to costs. -----