JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition. The landlord Respondent No. 3, Ram Autar filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes, Bulandshahr for the eviction of the Petitioner Chokha Mal alias Chaula Ram from the shop in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Petitioner taking advantage of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' made a deposit of Rs. 2,714/- on the 12th January, 1979, which was held to be the first date of hearing of the suit. The landlord claimed that the amount so deposited did not cover all the amounts due including the interest thereon. The Petitioner pleaded that there was no shortfall in the amount, for he had made certain other deposits u/s 30(1) of the Act. 2. The trial court partly decreed the suit of the landlord in respect of realisation of rent from 1-6-975 but refused the relief of ejectment of the Petitioner from the shop in question. The landlord Ram Autar filed a revision before the District Judge u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and claimed that the amount deposited by the Petitioner was not the full amount and there was a short fall and consequently the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act was not available to the Petitioner and secondly the deposit made by the Petitioner u/s 30(1) of the Act was not a valid deposit, as no notice was issued to the landlord. On both these points the District Judge agreed with the landlord and allowed the revision decreeing the suit of the landlord. It is against this decision that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, urged that the view taken by the District Judge on both these grounds was manifestly erroneous in law and the revisional order was liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel referred to two deposits of Rs. 216/- each made in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1973 vide paper Nos. 30-G and 31-Ga. His contention was that if these two amounts, which had been deposited u/s 30(1) of the Act, were to be added to the amount deposited by the Petitioner in Court, there would be no short-fall. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 216/- each made in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1973 vide paper Nos. 30-G and 31-Ga. His contention was that if these two amounts, which had been deposited u/s 30(1) of the Act, were to be added to the amount deposited by the Petitioner in Court, there would be no short-fall. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 2,714/- had been deposited where the suit was pending on the first date of hearing of the suit. The District Judge has given a finding that the amount that was required to be deposited was Rs. 2813.70. Learned Counsel further contended that the aforesaid deposit was made in full compliance with the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and, as such, were valid deposits. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents Shri Dhan Prakash, however, contended that there was no compliance with Section 30 or Rule 21, inasmuch as no notice was ever issued to the landlord regarding these deposits and consequently the benefit of the deposit could not be given to the Petitioner. Secondly, there was no refusal on the part of the landlord so as to give a right to the tenant to make the deposit. His third contention was that the deposit was not unconditional and, as such the order of the District Judge was not liable to be set aside or quashed. 5. The principal question in this case is when is a tenant entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act. This section provides an opportunity to the tenant who has defaulted in the payment of rent to save his tenancy by making a full deposit of the entire rent due together with interest at 9 per cent per annum and the cost of the suit, provided the aforesaid amount is paid or tendered to the landlord by the tenant or deposited in Court at the first hearing of the suit unconditionally. In the earlier Act there was no such provision. If it was found that the tenant had defaulted in payment of arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 3(l)(a) of the Act, a decree for eviction followed. 6. The present Act makes a departure from that and gives an opportunity to the tenant to save his tenancy provided he complies with the requirement of Section 20(4) of the Act. 6. The present Act makes a departure from that and gives an opportunity to the tenant to save his tenancy provided he complies with the requirement of Section 20(4) of the Act. Another feature of the Sub-section is that any deposit made under the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act by the tenant is also to be taken into consideration towards payment u/s 20(4) of the Act. 7. It is not disputed that there would be a short-fall in the deposit if the two deposits vide 30-Ga and 31-Ga are not taken into consideration, but if these two deposits made by the tenant are taken into consideration then there would be no short-fall and a decree for eviction would be contrary to law. The question, therefore, to be examined is whether these deposits were in accordance with law. 8. The District Judge has taken the view that the deposits made by the Petitioner could not be taken into consideration, for the landlord had not been intimated about the deposits and as such it could not be deemed to be a valid deposit. The provision for making deposit by the tenant is contained in Section 30 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act provides that where there is a refusal by the landlord to accept rent, the tenant may, deposit the rent in the Court in the manner prescribed. Sub-section (2) provides for making deposit in Court by the tenant where any bonafide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent. Sub-section (3) provides that such a deposit shall be made in the court of Munsif having jurisdiction. Sub-section (4) provides that when a deposit is made under Sub-section (1) the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord and the amount so deposited can be withdrawn by him on application made to the Court. Sub-section (5) provides that in case of a deposit made in pursuance of Sub-section (2), the Court shall issue notice of the deposit on the person or persons concerned and hold the same in deposit for the benefit of the person who may be found entitled to it by any competent court or by settlement between the parties. Sub-section (5) provides that in case of a deposit made in pursuance of Sub-section (2), the Court shall issue notice of the deposit on the person or persons concerned and hold the same in deposit for the benefit of the person who may be found entitled to it by any competent court or by settlement between the parties. Sub-section (6) provides that when a deposit is made by the tenant, it will be deemed that it has been paid on the date of such deposit to the person in whose favour it is deposited under Sub-section (1) or to the landlord in case under Sub-section (2). 9. The procedure for making the deposit of rent is prescribed in Rule 21. Sub-rule (1) requires that the depositor shall apply in Form E and the application shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as the number of parties along with process fee and notices in Form F. Sub-rule (2) mentions the heads under which the deposit shall be made. Sub-rule (3) provides that on such deposit being made the Court shall cause the notice to be served on the opposite party along with a copy of the application. Sub-rule (4) provides that where the notice of the deposit is returned unserved, the Court shall fix a date on or before which the applicant shall deposit the fresh process fee and notice in Form F. If however within the time so allowed or the extended period of time the depositor fails to take steps his application is to be rejected and the amount refunded to him. Sub-rule (5) is not relevant. 10. It is evident from the above that only a deposit u/s 30(1) is entitled to consideration u/s 20(4) of the Act. A deposit made u/s 30(2) of the Act is not to be taken into consideration. The reason behind this is clear. Sub-rule (5) is not relevant. 10. It is evident from the above that only a deposit u/s 30(1) is entitled to consideration u/s 20(4) of the Act. A deposit made u/s 30(2) of the Act is not to be taken into consideration. The reason behind this is clear. Where there is no dispute as to who the landlord is and he has refused to accept the rent, the tenant has been given an option to make the deposit in Court (as provided in Section 30(3) of the Act) where there is a dispute as to who is entitled to receive the rent, the tenant may make a deposit u/s 30(2) of the Act but then he has not been given the benefit of such a deposit u/s 20(4) of the Act, for in such a case the person filing the suit for eviction has first to establish his rights to be entitled to receive the rent. It is also evident from the above that the making of the deposit is complete when Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 21 are complied with. If the application is made in the proper Court in the prescribed form along with the requisite number or copies, process fee and notices in the prescribed form and the deposit is made under the prescribed head as stated in Sub-rule (2), the tenant has performed his part of duty. Sub-rule (3) contemplates that if there is compliance with Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) then notice shall be issued to the landlord. As a matter of fact, Sub-rule (3) contemplates the duty cast on the Court. The word used are "the Court shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the opposite party along with a copy of the application". In case the notice is returned unserved, the duty is cast on the Court to intimate to the depositor to take fresh steps within a certain period of time or even extend the period of time so initially fixed. In case the tenant fails to do the needful then in that event notice would not be issued and the amount would be liable to be refunded to the depositor. 11. In case the tenant fails to do the needful then in that event notice would not be issued and the amount would be liable to be refunded to the depositor. 11. It is now to be seen whether the depositor would get benefit of the deposit at the stage when he complies with Sub-rules (1) and (2) or on the service of notice as contemplated under Sub-rule (3). It has been seen above that a notice would issue when there is a full compliance with the provisions of Sub-rules (1) and (2). The duty cast on the depositor viz. the tenant, would be over the moment he complied with the requirements of Sub-rules (1) and (2). He is not required to do anything further except in a case where the notice returns unserved and he is required to take fresh steps. In this case, the provisions of Sub-rule (4) are not attracted at all, for it is no body's case that the notice was returned unserved and that even after the opportunity was given to the tenant he had not furnished the process fee, notice etc. 12. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 30 of the Act the deeming clause has the effect of treating a deposit (made as aforesaid) into a payment to a person in whose favour it is deposited. The term 'made as aforesaid' in Sub-section (6) would only refer to the prescribed manner referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 30. Sub-rules (1) and (2) prescribe the manner of deposit. 13. In my opinion, the tenant is not required to do anything further than what is contemplated under Sub-rules (1) and (2). The requirement of sending notice only commences after there is a full compliance with the requirement of Sub-rules (1) and (2) and the duty to send notice and get it served on the landlord is on the Court. Whether the notice is served or not is no part of the duty of the depositor. The depositor cannot be penalised if the notice is not issued by the Court or after its return unserved is not brought to the notice of the depositor for taking fresh steps. Whether the notice is served or not is no part of the duty of the depositor. The depositor cannot be penalised if the notice is not issued by the Court or after its return unserved is not brought to the notice of the depositor for taking fresh steps. The Court will be perfectly justified in not issuing notice in case there is a non-compliance with any of the requirements of Sub-rules (1) and (2) and (4) but then in that event it would be the duty of the Court to bring the defects to the notice of the depositor. Assuming that all that has to be done by the depositor/tenant has been done, but for some reason or the other the Court fails to send notice as contemplated under Sub-rule (3), then the depositor cannot be penalised. It is, therefore, clear that a tenant depositor is entitled to take the benefit of the deposit when he complies with the requirements of Sub-rules (1) and (2) fully, whether or not the notice is issued by the Court and served on the opposite party under Sub-rule (3). 14. In the present case, it is not the case of any of the parties that the Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 21, or that the notice came back unserved and on being required to take fresh steps the depositor failed to take the requisite steps within the time allowed by the Court. In view of the above, the view taken by the learned District Judge that the deposit made by the Petitioner was not a valid deposit as notice was not issued to the landlord is manifestly erroneous in law and cannot be sustained. 15. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that there was no refusal by the landlord and consequently no deposit could be made u/s 30(1) of the Act does not appear to have been raised in the court below, for it has not been mentioned in the judgment of the District Judge. The question whether there was a refusal or not in accepting rent tendered by the tenant is a question of fact. In any event this Court would not enter into investigation of a question of fact while exercising powers of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question whether there was a refusal or not in accepting rent tendered by the tenant is a question of fact. In any event this Court would not enter into investigation of a question of fact while exercising powers of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In any event, I am not inclined to permit the Respondent landlord to take up this plea now in this Court for it is too late in the day. 16. Another contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent was that the deposit made by the Petitioner was not unconditional. It does not appear that this matter was taken up before the learned District Judge. The question whether it was a conditional deposit or not is also question of fact is relevant for the purposes of Section 20(4) of the Act. Since this point was not adverted to in the order of the District Judge I think it would be proper that this matter is considered by the District Judge, for if the deposit was conditional, the tenant would not be entitled to avail of the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. It had to be an unconditional deposit. 17. For the reasons indicated above, I am of the view that the order of the court below must be set aside as it is manifestly erroneous and the case sent back to the District Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 18. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the District Judge dated 12-11-1979 is quashed and the case is remanded to the District Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in this judgment and decide the revision at an early date. No order is made as to costs.