ORDER K. N. Goyal, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition directed against a decree for ejectment passed by the Small Causes Court and confirmed on revision under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court by the II Additional District Judge, Faizabad. The relevant facts are as follows : - 2. The petitioner was a tenant of a portion of house No. 1321, the other portion being in the possession of the landlord plaintiff himself. The rent agreed was Rs. 25/- per month. The landlord gave a notice for enhancement of rent under S. 5 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, but the learned Addl. District Judge has held that the notice was ineffective because it was not established that the landlord had a right to enhance it inasmuch as the reasonable annual rent was not proved. This finding has become final and we should therefore proceed on the assumption that the rate of rent was only Rs. 25/- per month. On 3-4-1976 the landlord served on the petitioner a notice of demand for arrears of rent and also a notice to quit, which were combined in one notice. In this notice, demand was made in respect of rent for the period from June 1974 to March 1976 i. e. 22 months' rent was claimed in this notice at the rate of Rs. 31.25. The petitioner sent a reply to this notice in which he stated that he had made certain payments to the Municipal Board on account of house tax and water tax in respect of the house in question because he had received notice of disconnection of water supply. The petitioner had also served on the landlord a notice asking him to pay the amount to the Municipal Board and when the landlord failed to do so, the petitioner was obliged to deposit the amount with the Municipal Board. Three sums of money were paid in this manner. A sum of Rs. 78-75 was paid on 16-9-74, another sum of Rs. 57-/- was paid on 11-11-74 and the third sum of Rs. 17.85 was paid on 29-11-75. In the aggregate, a sum of Rs. 153.60 was so paid by the tenant to the Municipal Board. The Additional District Judge has wrongly held that the liability to pay water tax rested on the petitioner-tenant. 57-/- was paid on 11-11-74 and the third sum of Rs. 17.85 was paid on 29-11-75. In the aggregate, a sum of Rs. 153.60 was so paid by the tenant to the Municipal Board. The Additional District Judge has wrongly held that the liability to pay water tax rested on the petitioner-tenant. The proviso to S. 7 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 lays down that the provision in S. 7 about tenant's liability to pay water tax would not be applicable to a building the rent whereof is Rs. 25/- per month. Thus the entire sum of Rs. 153.60 should have been adjusted towards the rent due from the petitioner. 3. The suit for ejectment was filed in the beginning of June, 1976 and in that suit claim at the rate of Rs. 31.25 for damages, use and occupation for the period from June, 1974 to May, 1976 was made. Besides, arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 6.25 were also claimed for the period from 15-7-72 to May 1974. Relief for ejectment was also prayed for. It follows from what has been stated earlier that the rent could have been awarded only at the rate of Rs. 25/- from June 1974 and further that the arrears at the rate of Rs. 6.25 from 15-7-1972 to May 1974 could not be awarded at all. 4. The date of hearing fixed in the trial Court was undisputedly 4-10-1976. On that date the petitioner made a deposit of a sum of Rs. 490.85. In the tender whereby this disposit was made it was mentioned that this comprised of several items. So far as rent was concerned, only a sum of Rs. 150/- on account of rent from May 1976 to Oct. 1976 was included. In this tender, paper No. 33 C, the other items mentioned were; interest Rs. 7/- court-fee Rs. 202/-. other costs of the suit Rs. 9/-, counsel's fee Rs. 95/- and two other sums of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 17.85 respectively relating to some disputed amounts of payment towards rent. The sum of Rs. 10/- was said to have been paid to the landlord in June, 1974 but was disputed by the landlord, and the sum of Rs. 17.85 was paid because the landlord was disputing this amount having been deposited with the Municipal Board on 29-11-1975. 5. 17.85 respectively relating to some disputed amounts of payment towards rent. The sum of Rs. 10/- was said to have been paid to the landlord in June, 1974 but was disputed by the landlord, and the sum of Rs. 17.85 was paid because the landlord was disputing this amount having been deposited with the Municipal Board on 29-11-1975. 5. Prior to institution of the suit, the petitioner had also paid on 11-5-76 a sum of Rs. 411.40 in the Court of Munsif. The deposit purported to have been made under 5. 30 (1) of the Act. 6. On the basis of these facts the following questions arise : - (1) Whether the deposit of Rs. 411.40 on 11-5-76 ensures to the benefit of the petitioner for saving him from the liability to ejectment under S. 20 (2) (a) of the Act. S. 20 (4) lays down that on the date of hearing the entire amount of rent together with costs etc. should be deposited by the tenant-defendant in order to earn the protection of the Act and to save himself from the consequences of S. 20 (2) (a). It further says that any amount deposited under S. 30 (1) by the tenant shall be deducted. S. 30 (1) lays down that the tenant may deposit the rent in the court if the landlord refuses to accept the same. In the instant case the landlord had served a notice of demand on 3-4-76. The Addl. Distt. Judge has found that there was no evidence of refusal on the part of the landlord to accept any rent which may have been tendered by the tenant after its notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that an attempt was made before the revisional court to produce some document in this regard. This application is dated 1-2-1978. It states that on 22-4-1976 the petitioner had sent a M. O. but its receipt was not available. This application was rejected. The application does not even mention the amount which was .allegedly remitted by money order. As found by the learned District Judge, the petitioner in his reply to the notice of demand had himself mentioned only a sum of Rs. 386.30 which he had merely expressed his willingness to pay. No assertion was made in this reply that he had sent or was sending any money order. As found by the learned District Judge, the petitioner in his reply to the notice of demand had himself mentioned only a sum of Rs. 386.30 which he had merely expressed his willingness to pay. No assertion was made in this reply that he had sent or was sending any money order. As there was no proper evidence of tendering the rent and its refusal, the petitioner was not entitled to go direct to the Munsifs Court and make any deposit under S. 30 (1). He was bound to tender the rent to the landlord after the latter's notice. As such, this plea of the petitioner has no force and fails. 7. The second question is whether the deposit dated 4-10-76 comes within the meaning of S. 20 (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire sum of Rs. 490.85 should be taken to be a deposit towards the arrears of rent, claimed in the suit. I find no substance in this contention. The defendant was required to deposit all the items, namely costs, interest etc., and if the sum of Rs. 150/- was clearly earmarked towards rent for the period from May, 1976 to October 1976, the deposit could not be treated as an unconditional deposit towards the rent due for the earlier period. 8. Thus although I have differed from some .of the reasons given by the learned Addl. District Judge, it is clear that the petitioner having forfeited the protection of the Act by virtue of the provisions of S. 20 (2) (a) of the Act and because of his failure to make a sufficient and correct deposit within the meaning of S. 20 (4) the suit was rightly decreed. The decree for rent is however incorrect to the extent that the learned District Judge has not given credit for Rs. 153.60 deposited by the petitioner with the municipal Board. 9. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that for the sum of Rs. 577.15 mentioned in the decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 22-2-1978 the sum of Rs. 423.55 shall stand substituted. In other respects the writ petition stands dismissed. No orders are made as to costs.