ORDER Ravis S. Dhavan, J. - The petitioner is a tenant of the ground and mezzanine floor of a building which is a cinema in Massoori. The name of the building is "Basant Cinema" in the locality known as Kulari at the hill station, Mussoori. Respondent No. 2 Smt Sheel Kumari Nigam is the landlord. She purchased the building by a sale deed on 30 Oct., 1982 and had acquired the right to realise rent, with effect, from 27 Sept., 1978. The petitioner never paid the rent. This fact is not in issue and is a matter of record and can best be explained by the reply which was given on behalf of the petitioner by the lawyer dated 18 April, 1983, Annexure S.A. I to the supplementary affidavit filed on 17 Feb., 1987. In paragraph 4 of this reply it is accepted on behalf of the petitioner that rent and the rate at which it was sought, was due. The passage reads "any how to avoid controversy my client admits the rate of annual rent quoted above and the same shall be remitted...." 2. For the purpose of this petition it is, thus, on record that for 4t/2 years the petitioner, as tenant, utilised the accommodation without paying or depositing rent, in accordance with law under S. 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is further a matter of record that the petitioner occupied the accommodation in pursuance of an allotment order dated 17-4-1976. On behalf of the petitioner, in his reply dated 18 April, 1983 in paragraph 1 it was stated ........... "It is admitted that Basant Cinema building was allotted to my client........ These facts are being mentioned at the outset by this Court as the petitioner attempted to raise a controversy that the landlord was not identifiable, in effect, that he had no idea that the building had been purchased by respondent No. 2 nor was he aware of any rate of rent. 3. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, that the petitioner as a tenant had doubts on the identity of the landlord, the law takes care of such a situation by putting an obligation on the tenant to be on the right side of equity and to deposit the rent under S. 30 of the Act. 3. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, that the petitioner as a tenant had doubts on the identity of the landlord, the law takes care of such a situation by putting an obligation on the tenant to be on the right side of equity and to deposit the rent under S. 30 of the Act. For the petitioner it was a situation under sub-cl. (2) of S. 30. He was a tenant by allotment, thus, the Act was applicable to him. An allottee of an accommodation cannot utilise it without paying rent, and in case there is any doubt as to who the landlord may be the law enjoins that there is no escape from paying rent be it a deposit in Court. The petitioner utilised the accommodation and escaped by not paying rent. It was rent, with effect, from 17 April, 1976 the date of the allotment order. On record the circumstances are that from 1976 to 1983 when the petitioner received the allotment order and the notice from the respondent No. 2 but the monies which represented rent remained at the hands of the petitioner. This is inequitable conduct. With monies representing rent in his hand petitioner was denying the liability to pay interest. Being confronted with a joint notice by the landlord and the Receiver (of the estate of Messrs Mansa Ram and Sons. Dehradun which had originally owned the building) to pay rent to the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the details having been given in the notice, the petitioner was making an issue in not responding to delivering rent to respondent No. 2 when the Receiver of the property had joined on the notice to caution the petitioner to pay rent to the landlord. This implies the intention of not readily agreeing to pay rent. On this aspect the S mall Causes Court whose order has been impugned has made a reflection. 4. Despite the notice of the landlord dated 15 Mar., 1983 and having made a complaint in the reply dated 18 April, 1983 agreeing that rent was due and accepting the rate at which it was due. the petitioner as tenant did not respond by tendering the rent within one month of the notice. 4. Despite the notice of the landlord dated 15 Mar., 1983 and having made a complaint in the reply dated 18 April, 1983 agreeing that rent was due and accepting the rate at which it was due. the petitioner as tenant did not respond by tendering the rent within one month of the notice. Thus, the landlord respondent No. 2 filed a suit before the Judge, Small Causes, Dehradun which was numbered as suit No. 18 of 1983 between Smt. Sheel Kuari Nigam v. Sri Rajendra Prasad. The plaint is dated 14 June, 1983. In the plaint, in paragraph 3 a claim for Rs. 23,822.22 paise was made representing arrears of rent effective from the date when the respondent No. 2 became the landlord, with the right to collect rent, along with taxes, increase in rent, interest on rent not paid and costs of notice. Paragraph 3 of the plaint reads as below : 3& ;g fd izfroknh ij fuEu /kujkf'k 'ks"k gS tks fd izfroknh us ckotwn ekax rdktk vnk ugha dh gS%& ( d ) fnukad 27&9&78 ls 30&4&83rd dk fdjk;k :0 15]768&00 ( [k ) fnukad 27&9&78 ls 30&4&83 ty dj :0 1]024&92 ( x ) Hkou dh c<ksRrjh dk 1@4 Hkkx :0 400&00 ( ?k ) mijksDr /kujk'kh ij 9 izfr'kr dh nj ls C;kt :06]519&30 ( M ) lwpuk i= O;;& :0 100&00 :0 23]822&22 The respondent No. 2. in the suit in so far as reliefs were concerned, confined the claim to the period which was within limitation, being three years from the date of filing of the suit by seeking a decree of Rs. 13,120.52. in the suit in so far as reliefs were concerned, confined the claim to the period which was within limitation, being three years from the date of filing of the suit by seeking a decree of Rs. 13,120.52. The details being in paragraph 4, of the plaint are reproduced below- 4- ;g fd okfnuh 31 ebZ 1980rd dk fdjk;k rFkk ty dj Hkou dj o C;kt ds izfrdj dks U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls izfroknh ls ikus esa vleFkZ gS ijUrq izfroknh LosPNk ls pj.k 3 esa of.kZr /kujkf'k okfnuh dks ns ldrk gSA bl izdkj izfroknh fuEu /kujkf'k ds ek/;e ls ,d izfrdkj ds :i esa ikus dk vf/kdkjhA ( d ) fnukad 1&6&80 ls 31&5&83rd dj fdjk;k :0 10]296&00 ( [k ) fnukad 1&6&80 ls 31&5&83 rd dk ty dj :0 650&24 ( x ) Hkou dh c<ksRrjh dk 1@4 Hkkx :0 202&00 ( ?k ) mijksDr /kujkf'k ij 9 izfr'kr dh nj ls C;kt :0 1853&28 ( M ) lwpuk i= O;; :0 110&00 dqy ;ksx :0 13]120&52 5. The first deposit was made by the petitioner as defendant under sub-cl. (4) of S. 20 of the Act in Sept., 1973 of an amount of Rs. 25000/-. The petitioner has made a misstatement of fact in paragraph 9 of the writ petition by making an averment that Rs. 25000/- was deposited on 15 Mar., 1983. This is not so, Rs. 25000/- was deposited in Sept., 1983. This is borne out from the petitioners' application before the Judge, Small Causes, Annexure 4 to the writ petition in the application, 32-C which seeks recall of the order of 30 April, 1986. by which the petitioners' defence was struck off, under 0. XV, R. 5 of the Civil P. C. In paragraph 2 the petitioner admits that Rs. 25000/- was deposited in Sept., 1983. When the petitioner moved an application No. 23C under O. XV, R. 5 of the Code, the Judge, Small Causes while declining to recall the order by which the petitioners' defence had been struck off, mentions in his order of 9 Mar., 1987 : "No objection has been filed against the aforesaid application of the plaintiff in spite of the fact that 10 adjournment applications, in succession to one another were granted on the request of the defendant. In these circumstances, this Court has, on having scrutinised the material on record held the defendant had committed default by not depositing the rent in compliance with the provisions or Order 15. Rule 5. C.P.C. (Sic)." 6. The Judge, Small Causes justified the decline of the prayer to recall the order by which the petitioners' defence had been struck off. The Judge, Small Causes observed : "It is admitted to the defendant that he had deposited in this Court up to the time of the passing of the order in question only a sum of Rs. 28516/- besides a sum of Rs. 1524.15 having been deposited by him as taxes which was his own statutory liability. Thus he deposited only Rs. 28516/-. According to him he had remitted a draft for Rs. 23872/- to the Receiver, the erstwhile landlord in April, 1983 and he, therefore, seeks adjustment of the said money. Remittance of the aforesaid amount to the receiver was mala fide because the defendant remitted that amount to the receiver after receipts of the plaintiffs notice of demand. Moreover the said amount might have been adjusted by the receiver against the rent falling due long before the plaintiffs right to claim rent with effect from 27-2-1978 had accrued. So, payment to the receiver of any rent cannot be treated as valid payment so as to be adjusted under provisions of Order 15. Rule 5, C.P.C." 7. The petitioner insisted that he had made some deposits subsequent to the date when the defence had been struck off. Learned Judge, Small Cause declined to take this aspect into account by placing on record his reasons. These were as follows : "A sum of Rs. 10000/- is said to have been paid a few months after the impugned order was passed. That too cannot be taken into consideration as neither this payment was in consonance with the spirit of Order 15, Rule 5. C.P.C. nor it had been deposited in Court up to the date on which the defendants defence was struck off. So the only deposit made by the defendant remains to the tune of Rs. 28516/- while the defendant was required to deposit up to 30-4-1986 the rent in arrears i.e. Rs. 23822/- as demanded in para 3 of the plaint plus Rs. 9824/- total Rs. 33464/-. The amount of Rs. So the only deposit made by the defendant remains to the tune of Rs. 28516/- while the defendant was required to deposit up to 30-4-1986 the rent in arrears i.e. Rs. 23822/- as demanded in para 3 of the plaint plus Rs. 9824/- total Rs. 33464/-. The amount of Rs. 9824/- having become due from the date of filing of the suit until, the defence was struck off had to be deposited every month as envisaged under Rule 5 of Order 15. C.P.C. Obviously the shortage was of Rs. 5130/- on the date of passing the order in question." 8. The orders by which the petitioners' defence had been struck off and the subsequent order by which the Judge, Small Causes declined to recall these orders are of 30 April, 1986, Annexure 6 to the writ petition and of 9 March, 1987, Annexure 7 to the writ petition. At the time of filing of the writ petition the suit before the Judge, Small Causes was pending, to be finalised on merits. This Court granted an ad interim order on 20 Mar., 1987 permitting the hearing of the suit to proceed but restraining the passing of final orders. A few days after the writ petition was filed the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a Civil Revision under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. This Civil Revision was entertained on 2 April, 1987 but the Hon'ble Judge before whom it was filed declined to issue notice on the civil revision or pass an ad interim order on the ground that it was concealed from his Court that a writ petition had been filed impugning the same orders which were being challenged in the civil revision. The Court. was of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Sapru, while directing that papers of the civil revision be laid before this Court he passed the following orders: "Before the orders could be signed Sri H. S. Nigam mentioned that against the same order a Writ Petition No. 4776 of 1987 has been filed and is listed for final hearing today before Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Dhavan. In the circumstances send the record of this case to the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Dhavan for orders today. I would like to add that counsel for the applicant had not mentioned anything about the writ petition. Justice R. S. Dhavan. In the circumstances send the record of this case to the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Dhavan for orders today. I would like to add that counsel for the applicant had not mentioned anything about the writ petition. 9. While the writ petition was pending the Judge, Small Causes proceeded to hear the matter upon permission being granted by this Court and pronounced judgment. The signing of the decree was stalled by an order of this Court during the pendency of this writ petition. The Judgment on merits is of 1 June, 1987 and has been placed on record by respondent No. 2 with an affidavit filed on 8 September, 1987 as Annexure S. A. 1. The Judge, Small Causes has noticed three aspects upon which issues were raised before his Court. These were : (a) whether the petitioner as defendant committed default in payment of rent'.' (b) whether the petitioner as defendant sublet the accommodation and (c) whether the petitioner as defendant denied the title of the landlord respondent No. 2? 10. The Judge, Small Causes answered. all the three questions against the petitioner, as defendant, and in favour of the landlord respondent. 11. In the writ petition before this Court arguments were confined only to the first question and no-other i.e. whether the petitioner as defendant had committed a default in payment of rent? 12. The Judge, Small Causes from the evidence on record found that in pursuance of a sale deed dated 30 Oct., 1982, Ex. 1 conferred a right upon the landlord to realise rent from the petitioner defendant with effect from 27 Sept., 1978. A finding was returned in favour of the landlord that she was entitled to regular rent from the defendant with effect from 27 Sept., 1978. Thereafter the Judge, Small Causes examined the matter of agreed rent and found that before the property had been sold to respondent No. 2, it was agreed between the receiver of the property and the defendant that rent stood. At Rs. 286/- per month. The defendant resisted this proposition but the Judge, Small Causes drew an inference from the fact that a sum of Rs. 23,872/- was remitted by the defendant in April, 1983 as being rent for 83 months and 14 days. This revealed that the breakdown came within the proximity of the rent at the rate of Rs. 286/- per month. The defendant resisted this proposition but the Judge, Small Causes drew an inference from the fact that a sum of Rs. 23,872/- was remitted by the defendant in April, 1983 as being rent for 83 months and 14 days. This revealed that the breakdown came within the proximity of the rent at the rate of Rs. 286/- per month. The defendant's defence, to the effect, that he was ignorant of the rate of rent was just not accepted. Thereafter, the Judge, Small Causes examined the aspect as to whom rent was payable. On this, the Judge, Small Causes took the view that the notice specifically having been given jointly by the Receiver and the landlord that rent was payable with effect from 27 Sept., 1978, to the landlord, respondent, there was no occasion to remit the amount of Rs. 23,872/- to the Receiver and this could not be treated as having tendered rent to the landlord or depositing it in Court. On this the learned Judge, Small Causes, in para 8 in his judgment observed : "....When the receiver has himself joined the plaintiff in issuing directions to the defendant to pay the rent to the landlord there was no justification for him to send the rent to the receiver. From this remittance, the tendency of harassment to the plaintiff appears to come out. I, therefore, hold the rate of rent of the building in tenancy of the defendant was Rs. 286/- per month and the defendant despite the notice of demand dated 14-3-1983 did not send a single penny to the plaintiff for being credited towards the rent account. Thus, I find that the testimony of P. W. 1. Sri Har Swaroop Nigam goes unrebutted and it is accordingly held that the defendant who was in arrears of rent for over a period of six years committed default in payment of rent despite receipt of the notice dated 15-3-1983. He is, therefore, liable to ejectment from the building in question. 13. This brings this Court to another aspect of the matter on which there is no issue between the parties even at the Bar here. He is, therefore, liable to ejectment from the building in question. 13. This brings this Court to another aspect of the matter on which there is no issue between the parties even at the Bar here. A perusal of the petitioner's affidavit affirmed in Aug., 1986 filed before the Judge, Small Causes, Annexure 7 to the writ petition in paragraph 5 mentions the deposits made in the Court, or paid as taxes, The pattern of deposit is as below : 1) September, 1983 Rs. 25,000/- 2) February, 1984 1,850/- 3) May, 1984 300/- 4) June, 1984 1,716/- 5) August, 1983 1,524.50 6) August, 1986 10,000/- 14. The pattern of deposit made by the petitioner as a tenant only makes him a 'habitual defaulter. Neither under sub-cl. (4) of S. 20 of the Act, aforesaid nor under R. 5 of O. XV of the Code, there is any dispensation to the tenant that upon having made the deposit at the first hearing of the suit he is absolved of the liability to not pay rent regularly to the landlord. In so far as R. 5 of O. XV of the Code is concerned, as is applicable in Uttar Pradesh it cautions a tenant by prescribing. "He shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual". Sub-cl. (4) of S. 20 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 enjoins a similar .obligation on a tenant to deposit rent so as to be clear of the default clause, sub-cl. (4) of S. 20 is to be read with cl. (a) of sub-see. (2) .of this section. Thus, the two read together, implies that a tenant must not be in arrears beyond four months, and if there be arrears he should pay to the landlord within one month from the date of service of notice of demand. Sub-s. (4) of S. 20 only implies that should a tenant seek protection from eviction hen the least that he can do is to deposit the ntire rent demanded in Court, as only then he could be saved from a decree to evict him. It was not intended that having deposited the mount due in pursuance of sub-s. (4) any latitude was permitted to a tenant to repeatedly violate cl.(a) of sub-s. (2) of section 0. It was not intended that having deposited the mount due in pursuance of sub-s. (4) any latitude was permitted to a tenant to repeatedly violate cl.(a) of sub-s. (2) of section 0. The fact that a tenant must not be. "in arrears of rent for not less than four months" does not mean that rent is not to be tendered every month. 15. In the present case the tenant has violated R. 5 of O. XV of Code and S. 20, Sub-section (2)(a) as well as sub-sec. (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. After Aug., 1986 the petitioner has made no deposits and while this Court has been examining the writ petition the status of the petitioner is that of a defaulter. Between June, 1984 to 30 April, 1986 the petitioner had not made any deposits. April 30, 1986 is the date when his defence was struck off under R. 5, O. XV of the Code. 16. The conduct of the petitioner summed up from the record of the case can be summarised thus :- (a) when he received a notice, jointly from the landlord and the receiver, calling upon him to deliver payment against rent due, instead of sending the payment to the landlord, the tenant takes upon himself the responsibility of diverting he payment to the Receiver. The Judge, mall Causes in his judgment gives a finding in this action as harassment to the landlord. he finding is borne out from the record; b) while the matter relating to the issue whether his defence has been rightly struck off or not, the tenant makes no regular deposit f the monthly rent between June, 1984 and 0 April, 1986, the last date being of the order by which his defence was struck off; and (c) even while this writ petition has been under consideration the tenant has made no regular deposit of monthly rent from Aug., 1986. Such a tenant cannot invoke the discretionary remedy of this Court to save him from eviction when he takes upon himself the initiative not to pay rent and walks into the clutches of the provisions of law which declared him a defaulter and himself invites the penalty of eviction. Such a tenant cannot invoke the discretionary remedy of this Court to save him from eviction when he takes upon himself the initiative not to pay rent and walks into the clutches of the provisions of law which declared him a defaulter and himself invites the penalty of eviction. This Court does not find any error in the orders of the Judge, Small Causes whether dated 30 April, 1986 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner's defence was struck off, and of 9 March, 1987, Annexure 7 to the writ petition, by which the trial Court declined to recall the order by which the defence was struck off and the order dated 2 June, 1987 by which the eviction of the petitioner was ordered as being a defaulter. On facts, there is no issue nor is there any manifest error or perversity in the aforesaid orders that this Court may exercise its discretion in its writ jurisdiction to protect the tenant when his conduct from the record has been so unfair and not in accord with law. More so, the tenant took upon himself to get on the wrong side of the law, whether R. 5, O. XV of the Code or sub-s. (4) of Section 20 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Besides, though this aspect was not argued on behalf of the petitioner the Judge, Small Causes has also found the tenant to have sub-let the accommodation to his monetary advantage and also having denied the title of the landlord. 17. This brings this Court to consider the last aspect of the matter. The tenant chose to file a civil revision impugning the same orders which were being challenged in the writ petition in another Court for the sole purpose of obtaining an ad interim order by material suppression of facts. The petitioner's conduct has been set on record in the civil revision by the Hon'ble Judge before whom the revision was filed. The petitioner had almost got away with an ad interim order but for the fact that the respondent landlord brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judge that the same orders had been impugned in a writ petition pending before this Court. The Hon'ble Judge, Mr. The petitioner had almost got away with an ad interim order but for the fact that the respondent landlord brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judge that the same orders had been impugned in a writ petition pending before this Court. The Hon'ble Judge, Mr. Justice B. N. Sapru penned his observation and declined to grant an ad interim order or admit the civil revision on reasons of blatant concealment of facts. The doors of this Court are not open and equity denies discretionary relief to any citizen or petitioner who is not fair in his pleadings and guilty of material suppression of facts. AIR 1951 All 746 (FB). The writ petition could have been dismissed on this score alone but the court thought it appropriate to deliver a decision on merits, as well as bring the second aspect on record also. 18. Thus, looked at any other way this is not a matter in which this Court is inclined to interfere with the orders of the Court below in Suit No. 18 of 1983. Between Smt. Sheel Kumari Nigam v. Rajendra Prasad pending before the Judge, Small Causes, Dehradun. As the signing of the decree has been put in abeyance by the orders of this Court dated 20 March, 1987 it will be signed, sealed and delivered and put in motion for execution for the eviction of the tenant forthwith in accordance with law. 19. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.