JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-11-1979 passed by Sri Y.R. Tripathi, Judge Small Cause Court, Rae Bareli as upheld by the judgment and decree dated 26-4-1980 passed by Sri S.D.N. Singh District Judge, Rae Bareli. 2. The petitioner was a tenant of Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The shop was governed by the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Kent and Eviction Act, 1947 which has since been replaced by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 had filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. Thus, suit was filed on 1st June, 1971. During the pendency of the suit the Act came into force with effect from 15th July, 1972 and, consequently, the petitioner, in order to take advantage of the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, made deposit of Rs. 957 in the Trial Court so as to save himself from bring evicted from the disputed shop. This deposit has been found by the Trial Court as also by the Revisional Court to be short of the amount required to be deposited under Section 39 of the Act, consequently, the suit has been decreed and the petitioner has been directed to be evicted. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had also claimed in the aforesaid suit the Municipal taxes, that is, the house tax and the water tax as also the Bhoomi Bhavan kar which they were not entitled to claim and if the amount of taxes, which was claimed by the landlord, is excluded, the deposit of Rs. 957 would be found to be sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 38. The contention is not correct. Section 39 of the Act provides as under :- "39. 957 would be found to be sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 38. The contention is not correct. Section 39 of the Act provides as under :- "39. Pending suits for eviction relating to buildings broughts under regulation for the first time.-In any suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act did not apply, pending on the date of commencement of this Act, where the tenant within one month from such date of commencement or from the date of his knowledge of the pendency of the suit, whichever be later, deposits in the Court before which the suit is pending, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's full cost of the suit, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) or in Clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, and the parties shall be entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where necessary : Provided that a tenant the rent payable by whom does not exceed twenty-five rupees per month need not deposit any interest as aforesaid." 5. The amounts, which are required to be deposited under this Section, are:- (i) entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation , (ii) interest on the above amount at the rate of 9% per annum, and (iii) full cost of the suit. 6. It is provided that if the above amounts are deposited within one month from the date of applicability of the Act to the building from which the tenant was sought to be evicted, a decree for eviction will not be passed. 7. It will be noticed that the Trial Court as also the Lower Revisional Court have found it concurrently as a fact that the petitioner had not deposited full costs of the suit inasmuch as he had not deposited the advocate's fee and the fee of his clerk as also the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Significantly the petitioner does not say in his writ petition, nor does his Counsel say in oral submission, that these findings are erroneous. Significantly the petitioner does not say in his writ petition, nor does his Counsel say in oral submission, that these findings are erroneous. What he has contended is that the amount was found by the Trial Court to be short by a sum of Rs. 68 which represents the amount of tax claimed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. If this amount is excluded, as the landlords were not entitled to claim a decree for Municipal taxes, the amount deposited would be sufficient to cover all the heads under which different amounts were required to be deposited under Section 39 of the Act. 8. The petitioner has admittedly, deposited a sum of Rs. 957 in the Trial Court. He has not given the details of the amount, namely, the break-up of the amount or the various heads under which the total amount of Rs. 957 was deposited by him. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner himself produced before me a copy of the plaint which indicates that the landlords had claimed a sum of Rs. 701 as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation over which they had paid a court fee of Rs. 112.25. The suit for purposes of a decree for eviction was valued, according to the U.P. Court Fees Act, one year's rent of the shop in question over which a court fee of Rs. 62 was paid. Thus, the total Court fee paid on the plaint was Rs. 174.25. Admittedly the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs 957 on 12-8-82. The amount of damages for use and occupation upto that date amounted to Rs. 728.CO while the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount to Rs. 728 amounted to about Rs. 65. If this amount was added to the amount of court lee, the total amount would come to Rs 987.25 which obviously does not include the advocate's fee or his clerk's fee nor the sundry expenses, e.g. process fee etc. The amount of Rs. 957 was definitely short of the amount which was required to be deposited by the petitioner in the Trial Court which, therefore, was perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case to have decreed the suit. The amount of Rs. 957 was definitely short of the amount which was required to be deposited by the petitioner in the Trial Court which, therefore, was perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case to have decreed the suit. I have done, this mathematical work only because the copy of the plaint was placed before me by the Counsel for the petitioner who, as observed earlier, has not challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below that he had not deposited the Advocate's fee, the clerk's fee or the amount of interest. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that even if the amount requited to be deposited under Section 39 was short, as contended by the opposite parties, the petitioner could have been evicted from the premises in question only on any of the grounds specified in the proviso to sub-section (1) or under clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, as specified in Section 39 itself, and since he was in arrears of rent for only two months on the date of the institution of the suit, a decree for eviction could not be passed against hint. This contention is also devoid of merits. 10. Obviously the provisions of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 were not applicable to the premises in question on the date the suit was instituted against the petitioner, i.e., on 1st June, 1971. The present Act became applicable to the premises in question with effect from 15-7-72 and in order to protect the interest of the tenants against whom suits were pending, it was provided by Section 39 that if such tenants deposit the entire amount of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation as also full costs of the suit and the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in the Trial Court within one month from the date of applicability of the Act, a decree for eviction would not be passed against him. The petitioner did make an effort to avail of the protection but the amount deposited by him was short of the amount which he was required to deposit under Section 39. It was for this reason that the suit was decreed as the protection provided by Section 39 was not available to him. The petitioner did make an effort to avail of the protection but the amount deposited by him was short of the amount which he was required to deposit under Section 39. It was for this reason that the suit was decreed as the protection provided by Section 39 was not available to him. Had a decree for eviction not been passed against the petitioner and had he been allowed to stay in the premises in question as a tenant, he, in future, would have been entitled to the protection of Section 20 and no suit for his eviction could have been instituted except on the grounds indicated in that section. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the courts below were in error in passing a decree for municipal taxes as it was found as a fact that opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were not at any time, required by the municipal authorities to pay those taxes. 12. It will be noticed that the landlord, namely, opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3, had in their plaint set up a case of agreement that the petitioner had agreed to pay the municipal taxes. It was on that basis that the Trial Court had passed a decree for taxes as well. This part of the decree cannot also, therefore, be interfered with. 13. No other point was pressed. 14. In view of the above the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed with costs.