ORDER K. M. Dayal, J. - These two connected revisions have been filed against the same decree for ejectment ruled against the tenant. Sri Tarif Hasan, the applicant in revision, took the disputed accommodation on rent from the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and executed a rent note in his favour which is Ext. 11. Under the rent note it is clearly mentioned that he was the Manager of an institution styled as Children School, Naroli and that the building was taken for the purposes of the institution. Subsequently there seems to be some difference between the plaintiff and the defendant whereupon the defendant sent the rent to the plaintiff' by money order. He, however, deducted an amount of Rs. 12/50 on account of money order commission from the rent so sent. The plaintiff-landlord refused to accept the rent as it was not for the entire amount. Subsequently the defendant deposited rent under Section 30 (l) of U P. Urban building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The plain issued a notice of demand as well as termination of tenancy alleging the defendant has sublet portions of the accommodation, made material alterations in the buildings and defaulted in payment of rent. Consequently he was liable to ejectment The suit was filed against the tenant impleading Miss Reeta Rathore and Mrs. Chisti, two teachers as sub tenants. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that there were no material alteration and no subletting. It was further contended that the building was taken for the purposes of the Children School which should have been made a party. It was further contended that was no default as all the rent due has been deposited under 30(2) of the aforesaid Act. The trial court gave a finding that there was no subletting and no material alteration. It further held that the defendant was bound by the rent note executed by it and under the rent note he was the tenant. The request of the defendant to implead the institution as a party was also turned down. It was held that as the defendant had remitted the rent of the plaintiff after deducting the commission, the plaintiff had a right to refuse the rent as it was not for the full amount. The request of the defendant to implead the institution as a party was also turned down. It was held that as the defendant had remitted the rent of the plaintiff after deducting the commission, the plaintiff had a right to refuse the rent as it was not for the full amount. Consequently it was held that the deposits under S: 30(1) of U. P Act No. XIII of 1972 were not valid and could not save the defaulter. It was also held that the defendant was a defaulter and liable to be evicted. Civil Revision No. 234 of 1980 has been filed by Sri Tarif Hasan whereas Civil Revn. No. 92 of 1980 has been filed by Miss Reeta Rathore. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The learned counsel for the tenant-applicant contended that the defendant was not a defaulter and as the rent was refused by the landlord, he had a right to deposit the same under Section 30(T) of the Act. He further contended that the children school was a registered society and, therefore, it should have been sued in its own name and as the society itself was not impleaded, he suit could not be decreed against the defendant personally. 4. The third objection of the learned counsel is about the non-framing of any issue about the question of non-joinder of the children school. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I find that the revision has to he dismissed. So far as the question of default is concerned, it has two facts ; one is issue of notice to the tenant and the second is effect of deposits under Section 30. So far as issue of notice is concerned or filing of suit is concerned, Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act is relevant. It provides that every Society registered under the Act could sue or be sued in the name of the President, Chairman or Secretary or Trustee as may be provided by the rules of the Society In the instant case from Exhibit 11 it is apparent that Tarif Hasun was the Manager of the Society and he was continuing as such till this day. Their cannot be any doubt that he was entitled to enter into any agreement on behalf of the Society. Their cannot be any doubt that he was entitled to enter into any agreement on behalf of the Society. Under the circumstances the suit as filed was maintainable and there was no defect in the framing of the suit The notice for demand and termination of tenancy was also served on Tarif Hassan and for the reasons mentioned above the notice would also Be valid. 5. So far as the deposit under Section 30 was concerned it has been found by the court below that there was no evidence of any refusal of rent by the landlord. On the other hand it found that the amount that was sent to the landlord by money order was also not the entire rent for the period. Therefore, the landlord was not bound to accept the same. Consequently the court below did not give the benefit of the deposits made under Section 30(1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as these deposits were not valid. It the deposits are excluded from consideration the defendant becomes a defaulter as rent for more than five months would be due. 6. So far as the second argument of the learned counsel was concerned about the framing of issue of non-joinder, as I have already referred, in view of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act it loses its importance. Firstly no suit can be defeated for non-joinder of a party; secondly in the instant case the Manager was a person through whom the Society entered into the contract of tenancy, as inch the suit could be filed against the Society through him. 7. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. The learned counsel for the applicant prayed that as an educational institution is being run in the premises, some time be granted for making an alternative arrangement. I accordingly order that the decree for ejectment against the defendant shall not be executed till 31st of May, 1981 provided the defendants pay or deposit the entire decretal amount including the dues for the period up to 31st May, 1951 within a period of two months. In case the deposits are not made the plaintiff will be entitled to execute the decree on expiry of two months from today. The defendants are hereby directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the land- lord on or before 31st of May, 1951.