JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This is a tenant's petition. It is directed against concurrent decrees passed by the court below decreeing a suit for the ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the allegation that the petitioner who is the tenant of the disputed accommodation had not paid any rent from September, 1968 as a result of which Suit No. 710 of 1971 was filed on the assertion that despite a notice of demand the petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month. 3. The defence of the petitioner was that the rate of rent including the water tax was Rs. 8/- per month and not Rs. 20/-. The rent upto March, 1974 had been deposited by the defendant in the previous suit. The rent for the subsequent period i e. April, 1974 to February, 1975 had been sent to the landlord by money order and upon his refusal the same was deposited in the Court. In the suit petitioner also claimed benefit of Section 20(4) by making some deposit. 4. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. The trial court found that the rate of rent was Rs. 8/- per month. Two revisions were thereafter filed ; one by the landlord and the other by the tenant. The tenant was aggrieved by the decree for ejectment, while the landlord filed the revision on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs. 20/- and not Rs. 8/-. 5. The revisional court has dismissed both the revisions. Aggrieved only the tenant has filed this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the view taken by the revisional court that the only deposit which can be deducted from the deposits which is required to be made under sub-section (4) of Section 20 is that which the tenant may have made under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is manifestly unsustainable in law, It was urged that the deposits made by the petitioner in Suit No. 710 of 1971 in regard to the rents for the period upto 31-3-1974 were also liable to be deducted in considering the application of the petitioner under Section 20(4) of the Act. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on two decisions of this Court ; one in the case of Hemraj v. Smt. Maheshwari Devi, 1979 U.P.R.C.C. 414.and the other an unreported decision of this court in Writ Petition No 6050 of 1979, decided on 22-7-1981. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that the decision of the revisional court on the issue of default is manifestly unsustainable in law. The revisional court is not right in thinking that the only deposit which is liable to be deducted from the deposit which is required to be made in sub-section (4) of Section 30 is that which the tenant may have made under sub-section (1) of Section 30. In both the aforesaid decisions the view taken by this Court is to the contrary. In the case of Hemraj (supra) a learned Judge of this Court has taken the view that sub-section (4) of Section 20 ought not to be construed literally and that deposits already made by the tenant tinder some provisions of law such as Order 15 rule 5 ought also to be deducted under Section 20(4). In the unreported decision also this Court has taken the view that the deposit legitimately made under Section 7-C of Act No. 3 of 1947 could also be taken into consideration in determining the amount which the tenant is required to deposit under Section 20(4). 8. In view of these decisions, it is necessary to remand the case to the revisional court for reconsideration of the issue of default in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid authorities. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the revisional court in Revision No. 338 of 1975 are quashed. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Meerut shall now dispose of the said revision afresh according to law, having regard to the observations made in this judgment. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs of this petition.