JUDGMENT : S. Saghir Ahmad, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition may first be stated in brief. Opposite party No. 3 filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment of the Petitioner in respect of a portion of house No. 311/20, Abban Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Lucknow which was registered as suit No. 1917 of 76. It was stated by Respondent No. 3 that he had purchased the house in question through a registered sale deed dated 8-7-74 executed by Sarva Shri Mumtaz Ali and Abdul Qadir. The suit was based on the ground of default, as the Petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent which were demanded from him by notice dated 17-2-75. The suit was contested by the Petitioner in which it was claimed that he had deposited the rent with effect from July. 1974 till the date of suit in the Court of Munsif North, Lucknow in Misc. case No. 154 of 1974. The deposits were made under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. XIII of 1972)(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The suit was dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and order dated 3-1-79 with the findings that the Petitioner had not committed any default, as the rent which had been deposited in the court shall be treated to have been paid to the landlord. This judgment was challenged by opposite party No. 3 in a revision filed u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was allowed by judgment and order dated 18-4-81 and the suit was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision on the limited question as to whether the Petitioner had committed default in payment of rent with reference to the validity of the deposits made u/s 30(2) of the Act. After the remand the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 4-1-81 decreed the suit. The decree has been upheld by the II Addl. District Judge, Lucknow by his judgment and order dated 20-8-82 in Civil Revision No. 490 of 1981 filed by the Petitioner u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. After the remand the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 4-1-81 decreed the suit. The decree has been upheld by the II Addl. District Judge, Lucknow by his judgment and order dated 20-8-82 in Civil Revision No. 490 of 1981 filed by the Petitioner u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed. 4 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has, in the first instance, contended that the courts below should have investigated the question of title of opposite party No. 3, particularly as this question was raised by the Petitioner, who had deposited the rent in the court of Munsif North, Lucknow u/s 30(2) of the Act, on the ground that he entertained a bonafide doubt in his mind as to the person who was entitled to receive the rent. 5. It was pointed out that the house in question was let out to the Petitioner by the erstwhile owners S/Shri Mumtaz Ali and Abdul Qadir, who by a registered sale deed dated 8-7-1974 transferred the said house to opposite party No. 3 who informed the Petitioner by a notice in writing that the property had been transferred in her favour. It appears that on 1-10-74 i.e. after the execution of the sale deed, one Smt. Shahida Bibi had issued a notice (Ext. A-l) to the Petitioner that she was the owner of the property in question and that no body else has a right to demand rent from the Petitioner, Sri Mumtaz Ali, one of the executant of the sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 3 had written a note to the Petitioner on 10-7-74 (after execution of the sale deed) that the property belonged to his mother. It is on the basis of this document that learned Counsel has contended that because Mumtaz Ali, who was one of the co-landlords had informed the Petitioner that the property belonged to his mother, the sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 3 was not valid, as it was executed by a person who had no title to the property in question. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the document (Ext. A-2) contains an admission of Mumtaz Ali that the property belonged to his mother and that he was not the owner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the document (Ext. A-2) contains an admission of Mumtaz Ali that the property belonged to his mother and that he was not the owner. Consequently, his transferee i.e. opposite party No. 3, inspite of the sale deed dated 8-7-74, would not get title in the property in question. I have summoned the original I record and have gone through this document. It purports to be a letter written by Mumtaz Ali to the Petitioner. The language employed in the letter is incomprehensible. The letter cannot be said to contain an admission of Mumtaz Ali, as it does not contain an unqualified or unequivocal statement that he was not the owner of the property in question. Moreover, the letter is dated 10-7-74 i.e. it was written after the execution of the sale deed. A statement made by Mumtaz Ali after the execution of the sale deed that he was not the owner of the property in question (although such a statement is not contained in Ext. A-2) would not constitute an admission within the meaning of the Evidence Act. The document is of no evidentiary value and on its basis it cannot be held that opposite party No. 3 had no title to the property in question. Moreover, it is not open to the Petitioner at this stage to question the title of opposite party No. 3 when he had admitted the title of opposite party No. 3 before the learned Addl. District Judge at the revisional stage. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 18-4-81 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge by which the suit was remanded be quoted below; No dispute was raised before me about the subsistence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The opposite party who was present in person before me also admitted the Applicant to be her landlady. 6. It is, therefore, not open to the Petitioner to question the title of the opposite party No. 3 at this stage. In any case, as stated earlier, since the erstwhile owners S/Shri Mumtaz Ali and Abdul Qadir, who were the Petitioner's landlords, had transferred the property in question in favour of opposite party No. 3, the latter became the owner of the house in question. 7. In any case, as stated earlier, since the erstwhile owners S/Shri Mumtaz Ali and Abdul Qadir, who were the Petitioner's landlords, had transferred the property in question in favour of opposite party No. 3, the latter became the owner of the house in question. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner next contended that the revisional court was in error in holding that the Petitioner had committed default in payment of rent, as the rent had already been deposited by him in the court of Munsif North, Lucknow u/s 30(2) of the Act. Section 30 is reproduced below: 30(1). If any person claiming to be a tenant of building tenders any amount as rent in respect of a building to its alleged landlord refuses to accept the same then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it. (2) Where any bonafide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit/s made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent court or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building (3) The deposit referred to in Sub-section (1), or Sub-section (2) shall be made in the court of Munsif having jurisdiction. (4) On any deposit being made under Sub-section (1), the Court shall Cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the alleged landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by that person on application made by him to the court in that behalf. (5) On a deposit being made under Sub-section (2), the court shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the person or persons concerned and hold the amount of the deposit for the benefit of the person who may be found entitled to it by a settlement between the parties, and the same shall be payable to such person. (6) In respect of a deposit made as aforesaid it shall be : deemed that the persons depositing it has paid it on the date of such deposit to the person in whose favour it is deposited in the case referred to in Sub-section (1) or to the landlord in the case referred to in Sub-section (2). 8. The deposit of rent can be made by a tenant u/s 30(2) of the Act when he entertains a bonafide doubt as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent from him. It is provided by Sub-section (5) that a notice of the deposit made by the tenant u/s 30(2) shall be issued to the person or persons concerned and the amount deposited by the tenant shall be held by the court for the benefit of the person who may be ultimately found entitled to receive it. Sub-section (6) of Section 30 provides that in respect of a deposit made u/s 30, it shall be deemed that the person depositing it has paid it to the landlord on the date of deposit. 9. Rule 21 of the rules made under the Act provides as under: 21(1). Any person desirous of depositing rent u/s 30 shall apply in Form E. The application shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are opposite parties, and also the process fee and notices in Form F. (2). The deposit shall be made under the head "P-Deposits and Advances-II-Deposits not bearing interest-C-other Deposit Accounts-(B) Departmental and Judicial Deposits-Civil Deposits-Civil Court's Deposits." (3). On such deposit being made, the Court shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the opposite party alongwith a copy of the application. (4) Where a notice of the deposit is returned unserved, the Court shall fix a date on or before which the Applicant shall deposit fresh process fee and notice in Form F. If within the time so allowed or within such extended time as the Court may grant, the Applicant fails to take steps as above, the application shall be rejected and the amount deposited shall be refunded to the Applicant. (5) In the case of continuance of deposit of rent for any subsequent period, fresh application shall not be necessary. But process fee and the notice in Form F shall accompany every deposit. 10. (5) In the case of continuance of deposit of rent for any subsequent period, fresh application shall not be necessary. But process fee and the notice in Form F shall accompany every deposit. 10. In the instant case, an application was made by the Petitioner on 21-9-74 for permission to deposit the rent under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 for the period from 1-7-74 to 31-8-74. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 154 of 1974. The application was ultimately dismissed by Munsif North, Lucknow on 27-11-76, as the Petitioner had not filed the process fee and was absent when the case was called out. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that since the deposits had already been made in court, the rejection of the application u/s 30(2) of the Act would be of no consequence and the rent deposited by the Petitioner shall be deemed to have been paid to opposite party No. 3. I am not impressed by the argument. 11. u/s 30 a notice of the application has to be issued to the landlord for which the tenant has to file the process fee as required by Rule 21(1). If the process fee is not filed, the application has to be rejected under Sub-rule (4) and the amount deposited by the tenant has to be refunded to him. In that situation, which is also the situation in the instant case, the benefit of Sub-section (6) of Section 30 will not be available to the tenant. 12. Since in the instant case, the application (Misc. Case No. 154 of 1974) was dismissed, as the Petitioner was not present and had also not filed the process fee, the deposit made by him u/s 30(2) of the Act would be of no consequence and the benefit of Sub-section (6) would not be available to him. The Petitioner having thus not paid rent to opposite party No. 3 in response to the notice of demand issued to him was clearly a defaulter and the learned Addl. District Judge in decreeing the suit on that basis has not committed any error of law. In any case, the learned Addl. The Petitioner having thus not paid rent to opposite party No. 3 in response to the notice of demand issued to him was clearly a defaulter and the learned Addl. District Judge in decreeing the suit on that basis has not committed any error of law. In any case, the learned Addl. District Judge has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the deposits had not been validly made by the Petitioner u/s 30(2) of the Act, as there did not exist a bonafide doubt as to the person who was entitled to receive the rent and this finding, not being erroneous, has to be upheld with the result that the Petitioner was rightly held to be a defaulter. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then stated that the Petitioner may be given some time to vacate the house in question. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 did not object to a period of three months being allowed to the Petitioner to enable him to vacate the premises in question. I consequently allow three months' time to the Petitioner to vacate the house tailing which it would be open to opposite party No. 3 to execute the decree against him. 14. No other point was pressed. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. The records of the lower courts shall be sent back forthwith.