JUDGMENT K.C.Agarwal 1. This petition has been preferred by the tenant against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge passed in a revision Under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 2. Suit No. 826 of 1977 was filed by Smt. Ram Bansal and another against the defendant for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The facts, which are not undisputed, are that the defendant was a tenant of the accommodation in question on the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. A notice of demand of rent was given by the plaintiffs, which was served on the defendant on September 30, 1979. The tenant remitted rent of Rs. 348/- through money order. The tenant further alleged that the tenant had deposited a sum of Rs. 162-50 in the Court of Munsif (City) under section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. On November 28, 1979, the Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent from February 1, 1974 to October 24, 1977 and for mesne profits with effect from October 1977. The defendant filed revision before the District Judge, which was dismissed on August 28, 1984. In the revision the point urged was that the Judge, Small Causes Court had erroneously discharged to take into account the deposit of Rs. 162.50 made under section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and if that amount was taken into account, the defendant could not be held to be a defaulter. 3. The learned District Judge found that, from the order dated May 15, 1976, passed in proceedings under section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, as the application of the defendant had been rejected and the defendant was made entitled to withdraw the money, he was not entitled to get the benefit of section 30 of the Act; against this judgment and order a writ petition was filed in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition the learned Judge made observations to the effect that in case some points, which were raised before the District Judge under section 25 had not been decided, the defendant's remedy lay in moving an application to the District Judge. As noted above, the writ petition preferred against the judgment of the District Judge was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition the learned Judge made observations to the effect that in case some points, which were raised before the District Judge under section 25 had not been decided, the defendant's remedy lay in moving an application to the District Judge. As noted above, the writ petition preferred against the judgment of the District Judge was dismissed. After the High Court's judgment the defendant filed an application before the District Judge. He mentioned the following points, which were said to have been pressed, but not dealt with by the District Judge. These are : (1) Notice to quit is invalid. (2) No opportunity of producing evidence was afforded. (3) Points were not framed in the form of issues for determination of the controversy. (4) No default in payment of rent was proved. (5) The suit was filed in the name of wrong plaintiff. 4. Out of the points, mentioned above, the relevant one for this writ petition is the question of default. The learned District Judge remarked : " So far as the question of default is concerned that has been dealt with by the revisional court in its judgment and is not to be reagitated before me. " The District Judge rejected the application. Against the rejection of this application, the present writ petition has been filed. The controversy in this writ petition is confined to the consideration as to whether the application before the District Judge was right. It is not in itself a regular proceeding contemplated by or provided for either by U.P. Act 13 of 1972 or by the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The writ petition filed against the judgment of the District Judge passed in revision preferred under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act had already been dismissed and the controversy and the liability of the defendant to eviction had been finally decided when the High Court dismissed the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to para 13 of the writ petition and urged that the courts below committed an error in calculating the rent, which was due, and as such the decree for eviction was illegal. He, however, candidly accepted that in case defendant was not given the benefit of section 30 he would be a defaulter. Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to para 13 of the writ petition and urged that the courts below committed an error in calculating the rent, which was due, and as such the decree for eviction was illegal. He, however, candidly accepted that in case defendant was not given the benefit of section 30 he would be a defaulter. I have mentioned above that the application under section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 had been rejected by the Munsif on May 15, 1976, and the defendant had been made entitled to withdraw, the amount deposited. While rejecting the application the Munsif observed that it had not been moved after following proper procedure under the law and as such it was not maintainable. On account of the rejection of the application the deposit could not be considered to be valid. For availing the benefit of section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, it was necessary that the deposit had been made validly and only in that event the tenant would be discharged of the liability. If the ground on which the deposit was made is not found established or that the deposit was invalid on account of having not been made in accordance with the procedure of law, the liability of payment of rent to the landlord cannot stand discharged. Sub-section (6) of section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 applies only when the deposit is made in accordance with subsections (1) to (4). As in this case the Munsif rejected the application by finding it to be not maintainable, it will have to be necessarily found that the same was not a valid deposit and could not lawfully be taken into account. 6. In Hameed alias Hamid v. Radhey Lal, 1983 Allahabad Rent Cases 401, it was held that the deposits made illegally could not be taken into account in giving benefit of section 20 sub-section (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner cited Mohd. Salimuddin v. Misri Lal, 1986 AWC 521; Kameshwar Singh Srivastava v. IV Additional District Judge, Lucknow, 1987 AWC 91. Both of these cases are distinguishable. In the latter case the deposit was a valid one having been made on the ground of unjustified refusal by the landlord, to accept the rent. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was not a defaulter. Both of these cases are distinguishable. In the latter case the deposit was a valid one having been made on the ground of unjustified refusal by the landlord, to accept the rent. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was not a defaulter. He would be deemed to have paid the rent to the landlord and thus would be relieved of his liability of eviction. In the present case, as already stated above, in the eye of law there was no deposit. Mohd. Salimuddin's case (Supra) is distinguishable altogether. 7. It may be pointed out that a suit filed in the year 1977 for eviction has not come to an end because of one or the other proceedings taken in the court. The controversy, in fact, had not been decided finally by the High Court when it rejected the writ petition. The closed chapter was started by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. 8. For the reasons stated in the above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.