ORDER A. N. Varma, J. - This is a tenant's petition. It is directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below decreeing the suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default. 2. These are the relevant facts. The respondent is the landlord of the premises in suit of which the petitioner was the tenant. The respondent No. 3 filed a suit No. 381 of 1977 for the ejectment of, the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute which is a shop as well as for recovery of rent and damage for use and occupation on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1-3-74 till 31-7-76 which he did not pay despite a notice of demand dated 30-8-76, which was served on the petitioner on 18-9-76. The tenant gave a reply to this notice on 18-9-76 stating that he had deposited the entire rent due up to 31-7-76 under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and that, therefore, he was not in arrears of rent in respect of that accommodation. However, when the plaintiff sought to claim refund of the amount alleged to have been deposited by the tenant, it was discovered that the tenant had deposited only Rs. 18-75 though a much higher amount was due by way of arrears of rent for the period ending 31-7-76. Consequently, the plaintiff served another notice on the tenant dated 16-5-77 determining the tenancy of the petitioner under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner did not vacate the premises and hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the assertion that on the refusal of the landlord to accept the arrears of rent, the petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent due from him under section 30(1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in the court of the learned Munsif Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1974, which was the number of the case commenced upon the application of the petitioner under section 30(l). This application of the petitioner was allowed by the learned Munsif on 29-11-75, in pursuance of which the petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent due upto 31-7-76 under section 30(1). Case No. 24 of 1974, which was the number of the case commenced upon the application of the petitioner under section 30(l). This application of the petitioner was allowed by the learned Munsif on 29-11-75, in pursuance of which the petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent due upto 31-7-76 under section 30(1). As the plaintiff had not signified his assent to receive the arrears of rent directly from the defendant, the defendant continued to deposit the rent month by month even after receipt of notice of demand dated 30-8-76 from the landlord. There were thus no arrears due and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the defendant was not justified in continuing to deposit the arrears of rent in court even after receipt of the notice of demand dated 30-8-76 from the landlord. The amount deposited by the petitioner subsequent to the receipt of the notice under section 30(1) of the Act was, therefore, not sufficient to save the effect of the default committed by the tenant. The revisional court on a revision filed by the petitioner, took the same view and dismissed the revision of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having deposited the arrears of rent due upto 31-7-76 in pursuance of a judicial order under section 30(1) in his favour by the learned Munsif in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 1974, he was entitled to continue to deposit the rent for the subsequent period under section 30(1) until the landlord signified his assent to receive the rent by means of a notice in writing as contemplated under section 30(1) of the Act. It was contended that on the facts of the present case such a notice was not served on the defendant, and consequently the orders passed by the courts below are manifestly unsustainable in law. It was also contended that inasmuch as the plaintiff had not challenged the validity of the order passed under section 30(1) of the Act dated 29-11-75 in the plaint, it was not open to the courts below to hold that the deposits made by the petitioner were not in accordance with the law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that the petitioner had deposited only Rs. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that the petitioner had deposited only Rs. 18-50 under section 30 and that consequently, the defendant was a defaulter in any view of the matter. He also submitted that in any case after the notice of demand served by the plaintiff on the defendant, the defendant had no right to make deposits under section 30(1) of the Act, and that consequently, the view taken by the courts below is perfectly correct and in accordance with the decisions of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord had not signified his assent in writing under section 30(1) to the effect that the landlord was willing to accept the rent directly from the defendant is correct. 8. The relevant portion of the first notice dated 30-8-76 may be extracted here : "2. That you are a constant defaulter in payment of rent to the Secretary of the waqf. Rent from 1-3-74 till 31-3-76 at Rs. 6.25 per month viz Rs. 181.25 have already become due from you to my client which you did not pay inspite of repeated demands and so you are called upon to pay the aforementioned amount of Rs. 181.25 within one month of the receipt of this notice. 3. That the market value of the shop is not less than Rs. 25,000/- as other shop in the same vicinity had been disposed of at a larger amount than that. In accordance with section 9-A of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, you are liable to pay one twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the shop which is even more greater but observing the proviso, you are hereby called upon to pay to my client rent of the shop at Rs. 12.50 with effect from 1-8-76, although other shops of the notice giver have been let out upto Rs. 45/- per month which will also be enhanced under the New Act." 9. It is significant that under paragraph 2, the notice does not call upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of Rs. 181.25 demanded thereunder to the plaintiff. 12.50 with effect from 1-8-76, although other shops of the notice giver have been let out upto Rs. 45/- per month which will also be enhanced under the New Act." 9. It is significant that under paragraph 2, the notice does not call upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of Rs. 181.25 demanded thereunder to the plaintiff. The omission to mention that the amount be paid to the plaintiff is significant for judging whether the notice could be regarded as under section 30(1). The notice is completely silent so far as this amount is concerned, as to the person to whom the amount demanded should be paid, and it cannot, therefore, be regarded as an indication that the plaintiff was ready and willing to accept the rent directly from the defendant. 10. So far as the recitals mentioned in paragraph 3 are concerned, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the context, the demand must be related to a claim founded under section 9-A of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The demand under paragraph 3 of the notice is expressly relatable to a claim founded on section 9-A. 11. There is, furthermore, a more significant aspect of the matter. On receipt of this notice on 18-9-1976, the defendant admittedly sent a reply on that very date i.e 18-9-1976 conveying to the plaintiff that he had deposited the rent due upto 31-7-1976 and that he was willing to pay the enhanced rent of Rs. 12.50 claimed by the plaintiff with effect from 1-8-1976. The plaintiff kept silent even after the receipt of this notice and did not give any reply asking the defendant not to deposit it under section 30(1) of the Act but to pay the same directly to him. 12. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff had failed to signify in writing by means of a notice to the defendant that he was willing to accept the arrears of rent henceforth directly from the defendant. 13. 12. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff had failed to signify in writing by means of a notice to the defendant that he was willing to accept the arrears of rent henceforth directly from the defendant. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to a decision in the case of Lakhan Rai v. Ram Kumar Aggarwal, 1979(1) R.C.J. 491 , in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court considering a situation substantially similar to the one with which I am concerned, observed that until the landlords signifies his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant would he within his rights to deposit the rent in court under section 7-C of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 (which corresponds to section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972). From a reading of the decision of the Supreme Court. it seems clear that their Lordships of the Supreme Court were not prepared to equate a simple notice of demand by the landlord with a notice contemplated under section 7-C of 1947 Act which requires the landlord to signify his willingness in writing. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons and following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that in the present case the landlord did not signify his willingness to accept the rent from the defendant. The finding of the court below, therefore that the petitioner was not justified in depositing rent under section 30(1) of the Act after receipt of notice dated 30-8-76 is manifestly unsustainable in law. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents cited three decisions, namely, Chhapgur Ram and another v. Ganesh and others,1973 All. L. J. 486, Muhammad Khan v. Haji Ghulam Rasool, 1973 R.C.J. 202 and Radha Kishmn Maharaj v. Raja Ram, 1978 All. L.R. 612, in support of his contention that after the landlord makes a demand of the arrears of rent, the tenant is not justified in depositing the rent under section 7-C or under section 30 of the Act of 1947 of 1972 Act respectively. 16. I have gone through the cases and I find that the facts of the present case are materially different from the facts of those cases. 16. I have gone through the cases and I find that the facts of the present case are materially different from the facts of those cases. Furthermore in the present case there are some distinguishing features which I have pointed out above as regards the terms of the notice as well as the omission of the landlord to signify his willingness to receive rent even after receipt of the reply of the tenant dated 18-9-76 whereby the tenant had pointed out that he was depositing the rent under section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the decision of the Supreme Court concludes the controversy, in my view. 17. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited only Rs. 18.50, I do not find that either of the court below has found as a fact that only Rs. 18.50 was deposited. The only ground on which the courts below have found against the petitioner is that the petitioner is not justified in depositing the arrears of rent demanded after receipt of the first notice dated 30-8-76. The revisional court observed that the defendant had not furnished the particulars to the landlord, but the particulars pertaining to the various deposits made by the defendant had been found even by the revisional court to have been furnished at the trial of the present suit. 18. In view of what has been stated above, it is not necessary for me to go into the second point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that in the absence of any specific challenge to the legality of the order passed under section 30 of the Act in the plaint, it is not permissible for the plaintiff to contend that the deposit made by the petitioner were not lawful. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent also urged that for seeking the aid of section 30(1), it was necessary for the defendant to prove that the landlord had refused to accept the rent. Neither of the two courts below has found that the deposits made by the petitioner for the period to receipt of notice dated 30-8-76 were unlawful. The only fact found against the petitioner was that he was not entitled to make the deposit under section 30 of the Act after receipt of the notice. Under these circumstances, this argument cannot be entertained at this stage. 20. The only fact found against the petitioner was that he was not entitled to make the deposit under section 30 of the Act after receipt of the notice. Under these circumstances, this argument cannot be entertained at this stage. 20. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the courts below are quashed. The suit of the plaintiff- respondent for the ejectment of the petitioner is dismissed. The deposits made by the petitioner in the courts below may be withdrawn by the plaintiff-respondent. There will be order as to costs.