JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 16.3 79 and 10.10.1980 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is in occupation as a tenant of premises No. 134, Moballa Katra Saidan, Muzaffarnagar on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- which is owned by respondent No. 3 Birla Singh. Various litigations in respect of this accommodation started from 1964 and a suit No. 841 of 1971 which was filed on the ground of default as it was alleged that the petitioner had not paid rent since 6.9.70 inspite of service of notice dated 30.9.70 followed by another notice dated 16.8.71, was dismissed after contest on 3.5.76. Prior to the filing of the suit the petitioner was allegedly subjected to litigation as contemplated under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 which was rejected on 21.8.1966. A revision against the said order was also dismissed on 7.1.68. Another application of the same nature under section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was again rejected followed by another suit No. 9 of 1969 as well as criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the dismissal of suit No. 841 of 1976 by the judgment and order dated 5.3.76 respondent No. 3 preferred a revision (No. 46 of 1976) which was dismissed by the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 30.8.1976. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed another suit against the petitioner in the court of respondent No. 2 for his eviction from the premises in suit and also for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant (petitioner) committed default in the payment of rent from 6.9.70. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 sent a notice on 18.7.77 calling upon the defendant (petitioner) to pay rent due from 6.9.70 and also to furnish details of rent made by him in relation to proceeding of Suit No. 841 of 1971 referred to above. The defendant (petitioner) replied to this notice on 10.8.77. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 sent a notice on 18.7.77 calling upon the defendant (petitioner) to pay rent due from 6.9.70 and also to furnish details of rent made by him in relation to proceeding of Suit No. 841 of 1971 referred to above. The defendant (petitioner) replied to this notice on 10.8.77. It was intimated by the defendant (petitioner) to the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 that besides deposits made during the pendency of suit No. 841 of 1971 in the trial court the defendant (petitioner) had also deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- on 7.4.76 being rent from 6.3.76 to 5.1.77 during the pendency of S.C.C. Revision No. 46 of 1976 in the court of the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar,. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 thus pleaded that rent only till 5.3.76 was deposited in suit No. 841 of 1971 while the rent w.e.f. 6.3.76 to 5.1.77 was deposited in the proceeding of the said revision No. 46 of 1976 thus claiming that the petitioner could get benefit of the such deposits only till 5.9.76. The petitioner having failed to pay rent from 6.3.76 within the period provided in the notice has committed default entitling the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 to a decree for eviction besides a decree for an amount of Rs. 348.40 being the rent w.e.f. 6.3.76 till 18.8.76. The allegations as contained in the plaint were denied by the defendant (petitioner) by filing a written statement and contesting the suit on the ground that he has never committed any default. It was further contended by the defendant - petitioner that the deposit of rent w.e.f. 6.3.76 to 5.1.77 amounting to Rs. 200/- in Revision No. 46 of 1976 would be deemed to be a deposit in the proceedings of Suit No. 841 of 1971 hence the rent till 5.1.77 stood paid and the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a defaulter in the payment of rent for the said period. It was also stated by the petitioner that after the decision of Revision No. 46 of 1976 a notice was sent to the respondent No. 3 on 27.4.77 apprising him about such deposit though the respondent No. 3 being party to the proceeding was aware about such deposits. The petitioner further stated that a money order for Rs. 60/- was sent on 13.4.77 being rent w.e.f. 6.1.77 to 5.4.77 but the respondent No. 3 deliberately refused to accept the same. The petitioner further stated that a money order for Rs. 60/- was sent on 13.4.77 being rent w.e.f. 6.1.77 to 5.4.77 but the respondent No. 3 deliberately refused to accept the same. The respondent No. 3 was also called upon to reveal his intention about the manner in acceptance of rent. This notice sent by the petitioner on 27.4.77 was not replied by respondent No. 3. The petitioner then deposited the rent w.e.f. 6.3.76 to 5.1.77 on 2.6.77 in the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 156 of 1977 under Section 30 of the Act in the Court of Munsif, Muzaffarnaggar. This application was allowed on 29.10.77. The petitioner lastly contended that the instant suit has been filed with mala fide intention as another proceedings claiming eviction of the petitioner under Section 21 of Act No. XIII of 1972 has also been filed. 4. The trial court (respondent No. 2) decreed the suit vide its judgment and order dated 16.3.79. Aggrieved against the judgment and order passed by respondent No. 2 decreeing the suit the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts act before the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar which was numbered as J.S.C.C. Revision No. 66 of 1979 which was transferred to the Court of Ist Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. This revision failed and was dismissed on 10.10.80. The instant petition has thus been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the judgment and order dated 16.3.79 decreeing the suit and the judgment and order dated 10.10.80 dismissing the revision by respondent No. 1. 5. The case of the petitioner as is evident from the perusal of the record is that admittedly respondent No. 3 after the disposal of suit No. 841 of 1971 was allowed to withdraw the entire amount of rent deposited in the said suit. The revision a rising out of the dismissal of the suit No. 841 of 1971 was also dismissed on 30.8.76 was confirmed. In view of the judgment and order of the trial court dismissing the suit the amount deposited during the pendency of the revision amounting to Rs. 200/- on 17.4.76 was also liable to be withdrawn by respondent No. 3 who was fully competent and entitled to withdraw it. In view of the judgment and order of the trial court dismissing the suit the amount deposited during the pendency of the revision amounting to Rs. 200/- on 17.4.76 was also liable to be withdrawn by respondent No. 3 who was fully competent and entitled to withdraw it. The deposit having ben made in the proceeding either in the court of respondent No. 2 or in the court of respondent No. 1 itself gave a valid discharge to the petitioner from his liability to pay the amount of rent till 15.1.77. In any case the petitioner cannot be decreed to be defaulter in the eye of law, In any case the contention of the petitioner is that he has acted in a bona fide manner in tendering every amount due to respondent No. 3 and which the latter could have withdrawn. The willingness to withdraw the amount is also apparent from the perusal of the notice dated 18.7.77 sent by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner which clearly shows that the details of the deposits were sought for from the petitioner so that the respondent No. 3 may withdraw the amount. The compliance of this notice was achieved by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 however, did not give any reply to the notice sent by the petitioner in reply to the notice thus giving belief to the petitioner that respondent No. 3 had agreed to withdraw the amount and had finally consented thereto. In view of the decisions of Suit No. 841 of 1971 and Revision No. 4% of 79 respondent No. 3 had full control over the amount and the petitioner in any case cannot be penalised for a wilful and deliberate default on the part of the respondent No. 3 in refusing to make an application for withdrawal of such amounts. However, the petitioner in view of such deposits cannot be deemed to be a defaulter. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the deposits of rent upto 15.1.77 in Revision No. 46 of 1976 the courts below respondent Nos. 2 and I respectively erroneously held that the deposit will not be deemed to be a valid tender in respect of the rent for the period w.e.f. 6.9.16 to 5.1.77 as the revision was dismissed on 30.8.76. 2 and I respectively erroneously held that the deposit will not be deemed to be a valid tender in respect of the rent for the period w.e.f. 6.9.16 to 5.1.77 as the revision was dismissed on 30.8.76. The rent was deposited with the permission of the court in revision No. 46 of 1976 on 14.4.76. The petitioner claims that the courts below committed manifest error in holding that the rent deposited in advance will not be deemed to be a valid deposit under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. as it bad not become due till then. The petitioner further contended that the court below have no doubt found that a liberal interpretation has to he given while scanning Section 20(4) of the Act and also that the petitioner bad at no stage any intention of not paying the rent still the petitioner was held to be a defaulter. Further it has been stressed by the petitioner that an amount which remained in custodial legis in a law court would not held a tenant guilty of committing a default within postulates of Section 20 of the Act in respect of the same amount. 6. Counter - affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has been filed - denying the averments contained in the writ petition. It has been categorically stated in the counter - affidavit that even withdrawal of the amount by respondent No. 3 which was deposited in the court will not discharge the petitioner of his liability to pay the amount when it was demanded by him. However, the deposit of the amount in the revisional court would not be deemed to be a valid one. The petitioner on being called upon to pay the rent vide the notice dated 18.7.77 did not comply with its requirement in the payment of rent. Hence the petitioner would be deemed to have committed default in the payment of rent. In view of an in valid deposit having been made in Revision No. 46 of 79 the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed default. 7. Rejoinder Affidavit denying the allegations in the Counter - Affidavit has been filed and the allegations as contained in the writ petition have been reiterated by the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. 9. 7. Rejoinder Affidavit denying the allegations in the Counter - Affidavit has been filed and the allegations as contained in the writ petition have been reiterated by the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. 9. The controversy emcompassing the instant petition is whether the petitioner has committed default in the payment of rent so as to attract the provisions of section 20(2), (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act 1972, (hereinafter called the Act) which provides for filing of a suit by the landlord for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy where the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service of a notice of demand. It would be appropriate to recite herein below in extenso such provision as enshrined in Section 20 (2)(a) of the Act :- "(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely : (a) That the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand." 10. As is revealing from the records respondent No. 3 was battling from time remotes for the eviction of the petitioner on one ground or the other. However, a notice dated 18.7.1977 was sent to the petitioner to pay the rent due from 6.9.1970 and also to furnish the details of rent deposited by him in suit No. 841 of 1971. By this notice no doubt a demand was made for the payment of rent due with effect from 6.9.1970 this notice further indicates soliciting an information that whatever amount was deposited in relation to suit No. 841 of 1971 which was filed by the landlord details of such deposits along with the amount deposited and the date on which such deposit was made so that the landlord may withdraw the same. It is further mentioned in the notice that in case no amount is deposited then the same may be remitted with effect from 6.9.1970 failing which the tenant would be deemed to be a defaulter and his tenancy shall also stand determined on the expiry of 30 days. This notice which is annexure 4 to the writ petition was promptly replied by the tenant petitioner through his counsel. The reply is annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of this reply would clearly indicate that the petitioner had furnished all the details of the deposits so made by him from time to time either in the proceedings under section 7 - C in the Court of Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, or in the suit No. 841 of 1971 or the Revision No. 46 of 1976 arising therefrom. The language of the notice sent by respondent No. 3 clearly indicates that the details of the deposits were sought for so that the landlord may withdraw the same. It has been specifically mentioned that in case of non furnishing of the details of such deposits the tenant petitioner would be deemed to be a defaulter within the meaning of section 20(2) (a) of the Act. When such compliance of the notice was made respondent No. 3 instead of withdrawing the amount so deposited in court on various dates found refuge in the plea that the rent deposited from 6.3.1976 to 5.1.1977 during the pendency of the revision would not be deemed to be a valid deposit and as such the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than four months thus attracting the provisions of section 20(2)(a) of the Act. A suit on this plea was filed which was decreed and the petitioner was held to be a defaulter. A revision preferred against the said judgment and decree also failed and was dismissed. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was not a defaulter within the meaning of section 20(2) a) of the Act as no rent was in arrears for more than four months having been deposited in court and for which necessary intimation was also sent as required by respondent No. 3 in the notice. The purpose apparently was to claim withdrawal of such deposits by respondent No. 3 as is evident from a bare persual of the notice. The purpose apparently was to claim withdrawal of such deposits by respondent No. 3 as is evident from a bare persual of the notice. There appears to be merit in this contention. On 18.7.77 when the notice was given it is clear from the reply that the rent till 5.8.1977 was deposited on 2.6.1977. Apparently the condition as postulated in section 20(2)(a) of the Act does not stand satisfied as the petitioner was not in arrears of rent for not less than four months. The courts below erred in law in ignoring this fact and proceeded to hold the petitioner a defaulter within the meaning of section 20(2)(a) of the Act. As the petitioner was not in arrears the notice would he deemed to be not valid so as to entitle the landlord respondent No. 3 to claim the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default. Section 20 sub section (4) of the Act also provides that a tenant would be relieved of his liability for eviction on the ground of default as contemplated under section 20(2)(a) if he tenders to the landlord or deposits in court at the first hearing of the suit the entire amount of rent and damages together with interest thereon as the rate of 9% per annum besides the costs of the suit. sub-section 4 of Section 20 of the Act is reproduced below : "(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as real) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub section (1) of the section 30, the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground : Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply into relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. Explanation - For the purpose in this sub-section (a) The expression 'first hearing' means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant ; (b) The expression 'cost of the suit' includes one half of the amount of counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit." 12. It is admitted to the parties that the rent was deposited in Revision No. 46 of 1976 arising out of suit No. 841 of 1971. This revision was dismissed on 30.8.1976 though the amount of rent was deposited till 5.1.1977. Later on the refusal of the landlord respondent No. 3 the tenant petitioner deposited the rent till 5.6.1978 in the court under section 30 of the Act. 13. Further the petitioner had also deposited the rent within the meaning of Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. In view of the section 20(4) of the Act as well as the recitation of Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. clearly absolved the petitioner of his liability to 14. Undoubtedly the Act being a piece of social legislation was intended mainly to protect tenants from frivolous evictions. Undoubtedly the Act being a piece of social legislation was intended mainly to protect tenants from frivolous evictions. While considering such provisions as enshrined under section 7-C of the old Act or section 30 of the new Act it is settled principle that the Court should adopt a beneficent rule of construction which should fulfill the underlying policy of the act as is more beneficial to the person for whose benefit the statute has been brought to book. In the case of Shankar Lal Sharma v. Ram Adhar, 1985 (II) A.R.C. 331 it has been held that the deposit made by a tenant would entitle him to absolve himself of his liability of eviction where the amount had been deposited in Court. 15. In the case of Ram Gopal and others v. Hari Shankar, 1985 (II) A.R.C. 306 DB it was further held that even if the deposits were illegal the same were not required to be deposited again and were clearly adjustable. In any case the tenant was entitled to claim benefit of such deposits. 16. Manifestly by sheer clever manoeuvrings respondent No. 3 did not withdraw the amount deposited and had obtained a decree for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default. The petitioner was entitled to deposit the rent upto revisional stage as the revision was the out come of the suit. The benefit of such deposits should be accorded to the tenant as has been held in Abdul Hamid v. District Judge, Bulandshahar, 1984 (I) A.R.C. 31, Bishambhar Krishna Kothari v. Devi Dutt, 1979 A.L.J. 217 where it was held that the amount deposited by the tenant could be withdrawn by the landlord and on his failure to do so the tenant could not he penalised. 17. Identical facts may be found in the case of Kalu Ram v. Rammoo Lal and others, AIR 1979 Allahabad 353, It was held that where the deposits have been made in the earlier suit and irrespective of the fact that the suit had been dismissed the plaintiff could withdraw the same. The defendant had even written to the plaintiff informing that he was prepared to help the plaintiff in withdrawing the same. It was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree against the defendant. The defendant had even written to the plaintiff informing that he was prepared to help the plaintiff in withdrawing the same. It was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree against the defendant. In this case also the petitioner had informed respondent No. 3 in an unequivocal terms about the deposits made on various dates so as to facilitate withdrawal by him. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratop Garg, 1985 (II) A.R.C. 298 also took a similar view that where the amount had beet deposited the tenant is absolved of his liability as in view of such deposits section 20(2)(a) would not be attracted. The view that where the rent has been deposited would absolve the tenant of his liability of eviction has been taken in the case of Ram Dass v. The 5th Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh, 1985 A.W.C. 586, Puran Chand Gupta v. II Addl. District Judge, Agra, 1983 (I) A.R.C. 817, Hemraj v. Smt. Maheshwari Devi, 1979 U.P.R.C.C. 141, Murlidhar v. Smt. Ram Piari Nigam, 1978 U.P. R.C.C. 321 19. In the case of Bhikha Lal v. Munna Lal, 1973 A.W.C. 35, it was held that where the tenant had deposited the rent in court being the past arrears and while replying to the notice had clearly stated about such deposits and his willingness to help the landlord in the withdrawal if required the tenant would not be deemed to be a defaulter. 20. In view of the above discussions the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 21. In the result the petition is allowed with costs and the impugned judgment and orders dated 16.3.1 979 and 10.10.1980 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and I respectively are hereby quashed.