RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Sri Komal Mehrotra for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Jain for the respondent. 2. This petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 24. 11. 2006, passed by the Additional District Judge XVI, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur in S. C. C. Revision No. 1991 of 2005 and the judgment and order dated 29. 7. 2005, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur in S. C. C. Case No. 35 of 2004. 3. By the judgment and order dated 29. 7. 2005 the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur has decreed the suit against the defendant-petitioner-tenant to handover vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff-respondent-landlord within 30 days holding the plaintiff to be entitled to receive Rs. 3,271 as arrears of rent and Rs. 588. 77 as taxes apart from Rs. 100 as costs. 4. By order dated 24. 11. 2006 the revisional court has partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioner by rejecting the revision in respect of his ejectment and modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court in respect of arrears of rent but maintaining the finding of default on the ground of arrears of rent. 5. The respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner Sri Santosh Kumar in his favour on 4. 1. 2001. He filed S. C. C. Suit No. 35 of 2004 alleging that the defendant-petitioner was a tenant in the ground floor of House No. 128/38-F, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 besides taxes that he committed default in payment of rent and was in arrears of rent since 4. 5. 2001 to 3. 12. 2003 besides arrears of water tax and sever tax amounting to Rs. 558 and that he had put the premises under his tenancy to inconsistent user in as much he was given the shops in dispute for doing business of general merchant but it was being used for grinding spices and Dais by installing grinding machinery in the shop. 6. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the allegations of default as well as of inconsistent user, inter alia, that he was a tenant since 1974 and had installed the grinding machines with permission of the erstwhile landlord. 6. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the allegations of default as well as of inconsistent user, inter alia, that he was a tenant since 1974 and had installed the grinding machines with permission of the erstwhile landlord. It was also challenged by him that he had taken the premises in dispute from the erstwhile landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 30 including taxes @ Rs. 15. 30p. per month which he has paid upto April, 2001. 7. The claim of the petitioner in his written statement before the Judge Small Cause Court was that on 1. 5. 2001 the erstwhile owner and landlord of the premises executed a sale deed in respect of the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent-Sri Rajendra Mohan Mishra without any information to the tenant and as such when the petitioner-tenant sent the rent to the erstwhile landlord through money order the same was refused by him without assigning any reason and it was only through the information given by other tenants in the premises that the petitioner came to know about transfer of the premises in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in pursuance of execution of sale deed by the erstwhile owner of the premises. Immediately after the factum of sale of the premises came to the knowledge of the petitioner-tenant he sent money order to the respondent-landlord at his address of Lakhimpur Kheri which was returned with the endorsement that he was residing at 83/5, New Labour Colony, Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner thereafter sent the money order at the address of the landlord at Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar which was also refused by the landlord and under these circumstances he was compelled to deposit the rent of the premises from 1. 5. 2001 to 31. 8. 2001 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 2122/70 of 2001, Naresh Chandra Gupta v. Santosh Kumar and others, and has been continuously depositing the rent in the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 2122/70 of 2001 since 1. 5. 2001. 8. It was also stated by the petitioner in his written statement that he had obtained licence from Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika for operating the grinding machines which has been renewed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur upto 2003. Case No. 2122/70 of 2001 since 1. 5. 2001. 8. It was also stated by the petitioner in his written statement that he had obtained licence from Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika for operating the grinding machines which has been renewed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur upto 2003. He claims benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 read with Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. 9. Both the courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and has also changed the user of the premises. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition is that the documentary evidence filed in the case was sufficient to prove that the landlord had refused to accept the rent sent by the petitioner-tenant and as such he had no option except to deposit the same in the Misc. Case No. 2122/70 of 2001. He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Indrasani v. Din Ilahi, 1968 AWC 167 (FB), which has been followed in Gokaran Singh v. 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hardoi and others, 2000 (1) ARC 653. On the basis of above decisions it is urged that the conclusion arrived at by the courts below under the impugned judgments and orders on the question of default is clearly erroneous and in ignorance and contrary to the aforesaid Full Bench decision and is therefore vitiated in law as once the conclusion is reached that the rent sent by the tenant by money order has been refused by the landlord without any lawful justification or excuse the suit ought to have dismissed as there was no default by the tenant and in any case the petitioner had made the deposit under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on or before the first date of hearing and as such no exception to this legal proposition could have been entertained. 11. 11. As regards inconsistent user he has contended that the two courts below have been over-anxious to reach the conclusion regarding the change in user and have not considered the case of the petitioner that he had been using the shop in dispute for the sale of general merchandise and also for grinding of spices from the very inception, as such the courts below have not applied their minds to the facts of the case and the conclusion drawn by them with regard to inconsistent use of the shop in dispute is irrational. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent-caveator has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgments and orders of the courts below wherein the aforesaid points raised by the petitioner have been considered. 13. Considering the rival claims of the parties regarding the knowledge of sale of the premises the courts below found that P. W. 1 Sri Anil Kumar Sisodiya in his statement affirmed the statements made in the plaint by stating that the information regarding sale and purchase of the premises was given by the plaintiff-landlord/respondent Sri Rajendra Mohan Misra to the defendant-tenant/petitioner by post. The postal receipt as well as the notice in writing dated 4. 5. 2001 were also submitted before the court below showing that the notice had been given to the petitioner at his residential address 128/38-F, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. He also produced the copy of the plaint in Rent Case No. 37/2001, Shashi Kumar v. Santosh Kumar and others, pending in the Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar in which the petitioner was also a party and in that case also he was informed in writing on 11. 6. 2001 that the premises No. 128/38-F, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur has been sold to Sri Rajendra Mohan Misra, the respondent-landlord. 14. The Judge, Small Cause Court on the basis of 36ga and 37ga came to the conclusion that the petitioner had on 1 1. 6. 2001 come to know about the purchase and sale of the premises in dispute and as such his contention that he had no knowledge about the sale of the premises in dispute by the erstwhile landlord to the plaintiff was incorrect and that the notice given to the petitioner by the landlord was not illegal. The finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court recorded in the impugned judgment and order dated 29. 7. The finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court recorded in the impugned judgment and order dated 29. 7. 2005, passed by him is as under: @hindi 15. Dealing with the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding default in payment of rent from 4. 5. 2001 to 3. 12. 2003 the Judge, Small Cause Court after appreciating the evidence of D. W. 1 and P. W. 1 held that the burden of proof was on the tenant to prove that the rent was refused by the landlord compelling him to deposit the same under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 422/70 of 2001, Naresh Chandra Gupta v. Santosh Kumar and others. Relying upon the decision in Ghulam Shabbir v. District Judge, Lucknow and others. 1992 (2) ARC 198, the Judge, Small Cause Court, on this point held that the petitioner had not produced/submitted the money order coupon under which the money order of rent is said to have been sent to the landlord and is alleged to have been refused by him, as such in the circumstances he cannot get any benefit of Section 20 (4) of such deposit made by him under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the reason that it has come on record that the landlord never refused to accept any money order said to have been sent by the tenant. It was further held that as a consequence the deposit made by the tenant under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is illegal deposit. The finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court in this regard is as under: @ Hindi 16. The Judge, Small Cause Court recorded a further finding of fact that the question of depositing the rent under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 arises only when the landlord refuses to accept the rent sent by the tenant through money order. The Judge, Small Cause Court recorded his finding after relying upon the decision in Ghulam Shabbtr v. District Judge, Lucknow and others (supra ). The Judge, Small Cause Court recorded his finding after relying upon the decision in Ghulam Shabbtr v. District Judge, Lucknow and others (supra ). The trial court held that the tenant has miserably failed to establish that the landlord had refused to accept the rent sent by the tenant through money order compelling him to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and as such the deposit made by the tenant under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is not legal deposit. 17. The trial court also recorded his finding to the effect that the case of the tenant before him was that he had deposited the rent with interest on the first date of hearing, i. e. , 26. 2. 2004 under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 amounting to Rs. 2,500 and that he had complied with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. and therefore the suit was not maintainable. 18. According to the plaintiff-landlord the tenant had not deposited the entire rent on the first date of hearing as the rent to be deposited by the tenant from 4. 5. 2001 to 3. 12. 2003 was Rs. 3,100 excluding sever tax of Rs. 559, the total of which comes to Rs. 3,658. Including the Advocates fee and legal expenses the amount comes to more than Rs. 5,000, which were also not deposited. 19. From a reading of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 it is apparent that the tenant had to deposit the entire amount of rent including taxes which comes to Rs. 3,658 while the tenant had deposited only Rs. 2,500. The amount deposited under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 by the tenant has been declared as illegal deposit, as such the question of adjustment of the amount deposited under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 had no legal effect for giving him benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 20. 20. The trial court in the aforesaid circumstances has rightly held that the amount deposited under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 being short the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The trial court to arrive at the conclusion has also relied upon the decision in Woman v. Una Addl. District Judge, Etah and others, 2004 (2) JCLR (All), wherein this Court has held that the benefit of Section 20 (4) can only be given to the tenant when he deposits the entire rent within one month from the date of service of notice. It is further held that if the tenant is not found entitled to the benefit of Sections 20 (4) and 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in that event he is also not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. 21. In so far as the ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent is concerned, the trial court has recorded the following finding: @hindi 22. The trial court has also considered the fact whether the petitioner had deposited the rent on the first date of hearing or not and has come to the conclusion that the amount deposited by him is short and on this ground too has rejected the case of the petitioner under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 23. The learned counsel for the respondent has then drawn the attention of the Court to the finding of the trial court which has also been affirmed by the revisional court except ejectment of the petitioner. 24. From the perusal of record it is apparent that both the courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner has committed default and has changed the user of the premises in dispute for which he was given the same. The courts below have given cogent reasons and have discussed in details the provisions of law under Section 20 (2) (d) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gokaran Singh (supra) to arrive at the conclusion. 25. The courts below have given cogent reasons and have discussed in details the provisions of law under Section 20 (2) (d) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gokaran Singh (supra) to arrive at the conclusion. 25. The deposits made by the petitioner under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not in accordance with law, hence he cannot get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 read with Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C, The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed miserably to show that the courts below have committed any grave error of law much less any perversity in the impugned judgments and orders. 26. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that grinding of spices and Dais by grinding machines which are movable or shiftable and can be used alongwith any other business of grinding of spices and Dais is not a manufacturing process is incorrect as after grinding the spices and Dais etc. a new product is formed. The petitioner had come to know of the same on 4. 5. 2001 and as such he is a defaulter. 27. The decisions in Indrasani (FB) and Gokharan Singh (supra) cied by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of depositing rent of defaulted period do not apply as the courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the deposit made by the petitioner on the first date of hearing was short, hence there is not only default in payment of rent but also in making deposit under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and thus is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4 ). Admittedly the petitioner had also not been able to produce money order coupon under which the money order of rent was said to have been sent to thelandlord, hence the decision in Ghulam Shabbir (supra) would also not be applicable for giving him benefit of deposit made under Section 30 (1 ). Admittedly the petitioner had also not been able to produce money order coupon under which the money order of rent was said to have been sent to thelandlord, hence the decision in Ghulam Shabbir (supra) would also not be applicable for giving him benefit of deposit made under Section 30 (1 ). The petitioner had to prove not only that he had sent money order but also that the rent sent by him was refused by the landlord compelling him to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) and for taking its benefit as well as that of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 28. In my opinion the learned counsel for the petitioner has made out no case under Article 226 of the Constitution for interference with the findings of facts. 29. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. .