JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - Arising out of the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes a tenant has petitioned this court. The landlord of the premises is a diety, styled as, Thakurji Radhakishanji Birajman Mandir through his Sarvarakar Dharampal Kesharwani. 2. Prior to Dharampal Kesharwani, the Sarvarakar was his father, Jwala Prasad. He had two sons. The elder is Sharda Prasad. The younger, Dharampal Kesharwani. Jwala Prasad died, but left a will and gave reasons why he had chosen to confer the status of the Sarvarakar upon his younger son, Dharampal Kesharwani. 3. In so far as the tenant is concerned he was in arrears of rent. Initially, Sharda Prasad served a notice upon him to realise rent. In pursuance of the notice served by Sharda Prasad, the tenant claims that he paid rent to him in pursuance of the notice. Subsequently, Dharampal Kesharwani served a notice upon this tenant which was served upon him on 12th July, 1978 and rent was demanded from 1st June, 1975 to 30 June, 19/8, prior to the receipt of the notice the tenant had already paid rent to Sharda Prasad upto 29 February, 1976. In pursuance of the notice and in the plaint, there were two issues which are relevant in reference to the present writ petition. The first issue was that the tenant attempted to fault the notice on the ground that the tenancy was with the School which occupied the accommodation, and not personal to him. The tenant was the manager of the School. The courts below returned a finding that the School has no status and the record showed that the tenancy was taken in the name of the tenant, Yadunath Singh. The second issue related to the default in not having paid the arrears of the rent due. 4. The learned District Judge in revision, took the view that in so far as the tenant had not received a notice of the Sarvarakar any rent which may have been paid to Sharda Prasad would not be treated as default. But, after the receipt of the notice, there was no occasion for the tenant to have paid, indeed if he had, the rent to Sharda Prasad, when he was fully conscious of the fact that the Sarvarakar was Dharampal Kesharwani. But, after the receipt of the notice, there was no occasion for the tenant to have paid, indeed if he had, the rent to Sharda Prasad, when he was fully conscious of the fact that the Sarvarakar was Dharampal Kesharwani. The learned District Judge took the view that if the tenant took recourse to paying rent not to the Sarvarakar but to Sharda Prasad, it would constitute default. The payment, if made to Sharda Prasad, would not be bona fide. The learned District Judge observed that if the tenant, after the receipt of the notice of Sarvarakar, has any doubt on who should be paid the rent then he ought to have made deposits under Section 30 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The learned District Judge returns a finding to the effect that the tenant did not do this and thus, the tenant is in arrears and there has been a default under the law. 5. This is a case in which the tenant had in fact made default in paying rent to the rightful landlord, Dharampal Kesharwani, the Sarvarakar. There has been a default which the tenant has not been able to explain and thus, the suit for ejectment has been rightly decreed. This court in its jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus, cannot grant any relief of the tenant. 6. After this order had been dictated, the tenant sought an indulgence of this court to vacate the accommodation within such period as this court might set. On behalf of the tenant, it was submitted that an affidavit containing an undertaking would be placed on record. Subject to an affidavit being filed, this court permits the tenant to reside in the accommodation in dispute for the next six months and the tenant will deliver vacant possession of the accommodation on or before 12 October, 1987 without any let or hindrence and during this period will continue to pay the same amount as rent for use and occupation of the premises as he is paying. In order to safeguard the interest of the respondent No. 3, the tenant will make deposit of rent upto date, and deposit rent effective October 12, 1987 under Section 30 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 in the name of the Sarvarakar, Dharampal Kesharwani, for and on behalf of Thakurji Radha Kishanji Burajman Mandir within fifteen days from today. In order to safeguard the interest of the respondent No. 3, the tenant will make deposit of rent upto date, and deposit rent effective October 12, 1987 under Section 30 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 in the name of the Sarvarakar, Dharampal Kesharwani, for and on behalf of Thakurji Radha Kishanji Burajman Mandir within fifteen days from today. This amount may be withdrawn by the Sarvarakar, Dharampal Kesharwani. 7. A certified copy of this order will be placed before the Judge Small Causes, Kanpur in Suit No. 34 of 1984 Thakurji Radha Kishanji Biraj man Mandir through his Sarvarakar, Dharampal Kesharwani v. Yadunath Singh and another, as a consequence of which Judge Small Causes Revision No. 162 of 1984 had been occasioned. 8. Subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in this order, which the Judge Small Causes, Kanpur, aforesaid, will ensure, the petitioner tenant has been granted indulgence to reside in the accommodation for the period mentioned above. 9. With the above observations the petition is accordingly dismissed.