ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - By sheer clever manoeuvring opposite parties, succeeded in obtaining decree for petitioner's eviction in suit for arrears of rent and eviction filed after terminating tenancy on 12th July, 1979. It has been found and is not disputed that in 1978 opposite parties had filed a suit for arrears and eviction in which ultimately benefit of sub-sec. (4) of S. 20, U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was granted to petitioner. It was held in revision on 10-3-1979 that entire deposit having been made on the first date of hearing he was not liable to eviction. Immediately thereafter opposite parties filed a review application on which notice was issued on 16-3-1979. After allowing of revision and dismissal of suit petitioner offered the rent to opposite party but he refused to accept the same. Consequently petitioner deposited the same with Court, as he was doing earlier, because notice had been issued on review application. The review petition was dismissed on 11th July. On the very next day opposite party sent another notice terminating petitioner's tenancy and demanding rent from November, 1978. In August, 1979 suit for eviction, which has given rise to this petition was filed. It was claimed that petitioner had deposited the rent in court without intimation to petitioner (opposite parties, therefore, it was not in accordance with law and, petitioner was a defaulter liable to eviction. The trial Court did not find any substance in the allegation that petitioner was in arrears. It was held that when notice was issued on 12th July, 1979 petitioner was not in arrears. He found that from record it was clear that rent for March, 1979 was deposited on 10-4-1979. And the rent for April and' May, 1979 was sent by money order. But it was refused. Thereafter it was deposited in court on 23rd June, 1979. Consequently suit was dismissed. In revision the finding that deposits were made and (was?) affirmed. The revising authority found that rent from April to June was deposited by petitioner. But the revision was allowed and suit has been decreed as the deposit by petitioner in review petition could not be deemed to be deposit either. under sub-s. (4) of S. 20 or under Or. XV R. 5, CPC, or unifier S. 30 of the Act. It was also held that there was no order of court permitting petitioner to make monthly deposits. under sub-s. (4) of S. 20 or under Or. XV R. 5, CPC, or unifier S. 30 of the Act. It was also held that there was no order of court permitting petitioner to make monthly deposits. Therefore, deposits made by petitioner did not enure to benefit of opposite party as such it could not be held that petitioner was not a defaulter. 2. From what has been narrated above it stands out that rent up to 30th June was deposited by petitioner in Court. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that rent from April to June, 1979 was deposited under orders of Court. It has not been denied by respondent in the affidavit filed by them. In fact there is no reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. It is, therefore, to be accepted that the rent was deposited by petitioner under orders of the Court. The finding of the revising authority that the deposit was made by petitioner without any direction of the Court appears to have been recorded under misapprehension. 3. Even assuming that deposit was made without any order of the Court, the question is whether the petitioner could be considered to be a defaulter within meaning of S. 20 and his tenancy could be terminated and a suit for eviction could be filed. Admittedly earlier suit for eviction was pending till 11th July, 1979, although in review against order passed by District Judge in revision. In it the petitioner had deposited not only arrears but continued to deposit current rent as required by O. XV R.5. CPC. Technically speaking this requirement came to an end when suit was decided in November 1978 but petitioner continued depositing it in revision as well. It may not have been necessary and failure to deposit current rent in appeal or revision may not result in striking off defence but continuance of deposit with Court cannot be considered as deposit contrary to law or not deposit thereby rendering petitioner in arrears. Even the revising authority did not accept claim of petitioner (opposite parties?) that petitioner was defaulter from November 1978 presumably because when revision must have been admitted and decree of the Court below must have been stayed it must have been subject to condition of depositing the rent. Even the revising authority did not accept claim of petitioner (opposite parties?) that petitioner was defaulter from November 1978 presumably because when revision must have been admitted and decree of the Court below must have been stayed it must have been subject to condition of depositing the rent. It is the deposit from April to June, 1979 which has been treated as deposit without any sanction in law. But once review petition was admitted and notice was issued the deposit has to be traced back to the order it pursuance of which deposits were being made during pendency of revision. Not only this after decision of revision the petitioner offered rent to opposite party who declined to accept it. It was then sent by money order. It was not accepted. Then it was deposited in Court. It would be highly unfair to treat such deposit without any authority. That would be permitting opposite party taking advantage of his own calculated move to create a situation in which petitioner may be deemed to be defaulter. It may not be a deposit under O. XV R. 5. CPC, yet it is a deposit of rent which the landlord refused to accept. It has to be related back to the earlier deposit which started due to refusal of landlord to accept and this shall be deemed to continue till the proceedings did not come to an end. It was not necessary for petitioner to send money order to the landlord for every month during which the suit was pending and to deposit it after his refusal. The result of the deposit of rent with the Court was that petitioner could not be deemed to be in arrears of rent. If the argument is accepted that O. XV R. 5. CPC. did not apply in revision and the deposit of current rent is not contemplated under S. 20, therefore, petitioner should be deemed in arrears then petitioner shall have to be treated as defaulter not only for the period after decision of the revision and dismissal of review petition but even for the period the revision was pending before District Judge. This cannot be done on rationale or any principle. It is too technical a, construction and too narrow meaning given to the default of arrears of rent. For the purpose of suit for eviction default cannot be manoeuvred. This cannot be done on rationale or any principle. It is too technical a, construction and too narrow meaning given to the default of arrears of rent. For the purpose of suit for eviction default cannot be manoeuvred. Non-payment of rent should be deliberate, wilful. In any case, it cannot be permitted to be framed for purposes of obtaining a decree from Court. Such design, if permitted shall encourage dishonest and unscrupulous litigation and frustrate entire objective of Rent Control legislation. Rent may either he paid to landlord or it may be deemed to have been paid. One of such situations is contemplated in section 30 of the Act. What is basic is payment. In a case where the suit for eviction is pending and the petitioner, on refusal by landlord deposits it and the same is accepted by Court there is no reason to hold that such deposit shall not enure to benefit of landlord or the tenant shall not be deemed to have discharged his obligation and he could be held to be defaulter within meaning of S. 20 of the Act. 4. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by District Judge is quashed, There shall. however, be no order as to costs.