JUDGMENT Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - This is tenant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.11.1979, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition. 2. This petition Vishwa Nath Tewari has been, the tenant of a portion of first flour of a house, detailed in the petition and situated in mohalla Railway Ganj, Hardoi. The Opposite Party No. 2 Jai Karan Nath Gupta is the nephew of the Opposite Party No. 3 Seth Chunni Lal. The disputed portion of the house was let out to Vishwa Nath Tewari in the year 1968 by Seth Chunni Lal. 3. The Opposite Party No. had and filed a SCC Suit No. 136 of 1973 for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month against Vishwa Nath Tewari and for his ejectment. The plaint of that SS Suit is Annexure No. 1 which shows that the suit was filed with the allegations that Jai Karan Nath Gupta was the landlord of the disputed premises and the relief was claimed to the effect that in case possession is not delivered to Jai Karan Gupta alone, the possession of disputed premises be given to Jai Karan Nath Gupta as well as Seth Channi Lal. The tenant Vishnu Nath Tewari filed written statement contending that the disputed premises were let out to him by Seth Chunni Lal alone in the year 1968 and the rent was agreed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month, therefore, any relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between him and Jai Karan Nath Gupta. 4. The aforesaid SCC suit was dismissed on 12.12.1974, vide judgment contained in Annexure-2. It was held in this judgment that Jai Karan Nath Gupta was the landlord of Vishwa Nath Tewari who had not committed any default in payment of rent. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 filed a revision which was partly allowed and the suit for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month along with the electricity and water charges at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month plus additional charges at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month for certain period was decreed in favour of the Opposite Party No. 3 on ground that the landlord was entitled to a decree for arrears of rent etc. 25/- per month along with the electricity and water charges at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month plus additional charges at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month for certain period was decreed in favour of the Opposite Party No. 3 on ground that the landlord was entitled to a decree for arrears of rent etc. In the body of the judgment while deciding point Nos. 5 to 6 in this revision it was held that the Opposite Party No. 2 Jai Karan Nath Gupta was not landlord and the notice given by him was not valid and that the suit for ejectment was rightly dismissed. Jai Karan Nath Gupta filed a Civil Revision No. 81 of 1976 in the High Court which was decided on 21.2.1979 with the observations that the findings on the rate of rent and validity of the notice were challenged while the findings of the first Revisional Court about the relationship of landlord and tenant between Vishwa Nath Tawari and Jai Karan Nath Gupta had become final. Thus it was finally held on 21.2.1979 by this Court that the landlord of Vishwa Nath Tewari was Jai Karan Nath Gupta and not Seth Chunni Lal. The second revision does not lie and has no force because that law was applicable on the revisions pending before 1.8.1978. 5. The High Court by means of order dated 21.2.1979 contained in Annexure B-6 of the counter-affidavit remanded the case to the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court decided that SCC Revision No. 1 of 1975 on 29.11.1979 by means of judgment and order contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition, and this is the impugned order. The revision was allowed and that SCC Suit No. 136 of 1973 was decreed. Feeling aggrieved the tenant Vishwa Nath Tewari filed the present writ petition. 6. The disputed premises were let out to Vishwa Nath Tewari by Opposite Party No. 3, Seth Chunni Lal. He claimed making payments of rent to Seth Chunni Lal. He claimed that the electricity bills and the assessment lists all indicated that Seth Chunni Lal was landlord of the building in question as shown in Annexures-10 to 20 of the rejoinder affidavit. The annexure No. 21 of the rejoinder affidavit indicated that the Opposite Party No. 2 Jai Karan Nath Gupta was admitted in a school under the guardianship of Seth Chunni Lal. 7. The annexure No. 21 of the rejoinder affidavit indicated that the Opposite Party No. 2 Jai Karan Nath Gupta was admitted in a school under the guardianship of Seth Chunni Lal. 7. A notice, vide Annexure-B1, dated 12.10.1972 was served on the tenant on behalf of Jai Karan Nath Gupta demanding rent from him. The tenant Vishwa Nath Tewari sent reply dated 18.10.1972 vide Annexure-B2 of the counter-affidavit, he then remitted rent to Opposite Party No. 3 Seth Chunni Lal by means of money-order which was refused by him. Thereafter, he deposited the rent with Court under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. The contention of the Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 is that he did not pay rent to the real landlord nor he deposited for the real landlord, namely Opposite Party No. 2. Therefore, he committed default. 9. But it is on record that the tenant Vishwa Nath Tewari was regularly paying rent to the Opposite Party No. 3 Seth Chunni Lal who had let out the disputed premises to him. There has been a family settlement between the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3. The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 could not show that the tenant had a notice of this family settlement before depositing the rent under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972. In the notice dated 12.10.1972, vide Annexure-B1 of the counter-affidavit, it was not mentioned that since when the rent was due or that there has been any family settlement resulting into the change of landlord. The Opposite Party No. 3 Seth Chunni Lal had also not given any notice to the tenant intimating him that he was no more the landlord. The tenant could not apprehend that subsequently by mutual settlement between Opposite Parties 2 and 3, the Opposite Party No. 2 had become landlord and the rent was payable to him. The tenant had no occasion to apprehend it because the Opposite Party No. 2 happened to be a nephew and not even a son of Opposite Party No. 3. In his reply, vide Annexure B-2 of the counter affidavit, he again denied the Opposite Party No. 2 being his landlord and then he deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act reads as follows :- "30. In his reply, vide Annexure B-2 of the counter affidavit, he again denied the Opposite Party No. 2 being his landlord and then he deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act reads as follows :- "30. Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances - (1) If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the 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 he alleged to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until 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 is made and rent 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 sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) shall be made in Court of the Munsiff 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 a person or persons concerned and held that amount of the deposit for the benefit of the person who may be found entitled to it by any competent Court or by a settlement between the parties, and the same shall be payable to such person. (6) In respect of deposit made as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the person 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). 11. The tenant believed that Seth Chunni Lal was the landlord and he mentioned the same is his reply vide Annexure-B-2 of the counter-affidavit. Not only that, his bonafide is established by the fact that he deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act. Simply because someone else was held to be the landlord behind his back and not within his knowledge, it cannot be held that he committed default in payment of rent. The judgment, dated 22.11.1975 contained in Annexure 3 of the writ petition, had become final under order dated 21.2.1979, passed by the High Court as contained in Annexure-B-6 of the counter-affidavit. The dispute regarding the payment of rent related to an earlier payment and on the basis of these two judgments it cannot be said that the tenant committed default in payment of rent by not paying rent to Jai Karan Nath Gupta or by not depositing the rent of Jai Karan Nath Gupta. The suit was filed on the basis of non-payment of rent resulting into 'default' for a period much earlier than these findings. Hence by no stretch of imagination it can be delivered that there was any mala fide on the part of tenant, with the result that this writ petition succeeds. 12. The writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 29.11.1979, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, are quashed. The case is remanded back to the First Additional District Judge, Hardoi for deciding the revision afresh. No orders for costs.