JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shiv Charan Sharma, J.—The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ ,order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17th of May, 2000 passed by the then Vllth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow in SCC Revision No. 112/1998, Naveen Kumar Mishra and another v. Bhuwan Chand Pandey. Petitioners, Naveen Kumar Misra and another instituted a SCC Suit No. 193/1986, Naveen Kumar Misra v. Bhuvan Chand Pandey for ejectment of the respondents from the property in dispute, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation. The said suit was decreed by the J.S.C.C, Lucknow vide the Judgment and order dated 5th of May, 1998. Aggrieved from this Judgment and decree, the respondents-defendants instituted a SCC Revision No. 112/1998 and this SCC revision was allowed by the then VIIth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow vide the Judgment and order dated 17th of May, 2000. The Judgment and order passed by the J.S.C.C. dated 5th of May, 1998 was set aside. Against this order, the present writ petition has been instituted. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 2. The plaintiffs-petitioners alleged in the plaint that they are the owners/landlords of the house No. 499/87 situated at Justice Gokaran Nath Misra Road, Hasanganj, Luckow. They have described in the plaint that the defendant is the tenant of the house in suit @ Rs. 50/- per month excluding the water tax after the enforcement of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Previously, Sri Gaya Sahai Misra was the owner and landlord of the house and he inducted the defendant as tenant of the property at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. That Gaya Sahai Misra executed a will dated 4th of June, 1965 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the entire properties including the house in dispute. That the plaintiffs inherited the property in dispute by virtue of the will dated 4th of June, 1965. A legal notice was served on 14th of April, 1967 for demand of the rent through their father. That the plaintiffs inherited the property in dispute by virtue of the will dated 4th of June, 1965. A legal notice was served on 14th of April, 1967 for demand of the rent through their father. The notice was replied on dated 6th of May, 1967 and in reply of the notice, it was alleged that he had also received a notice on behalf of Major Udai Prakash Misra and Shri Om Prakash Misra, the real uncles of the plaintiffs and on the basis of these notices, the defendant was in the state of doubt about the actual owner of the house. It has also stipulated in the reply that he will deposit the rent in the court under Section 7-C (2) of the U.P. Act 3 of 1947. Inspite of this reply dated 6th of May, 1967, no rent was deposited in any court till the year 1974 and due to this reason, the defendant committed default in making the payment of the rent. There was a dispute regarding the execution of the will in between the plaintiffs and Major Udai Prakash Misra and Om Prakash Misra and there had been prolong litigation on this matter. Ultimately in M.C.A. No. 128/1982, it was decided that the plaintiffs are the owners/landlords of the property in dispute. In this appeal, the Judgment dated 5th of May, 1982 of Munsif South passed in Misc. Case No. 108/1967, Naveen Kumar Misra and another v. Property of late Shri Gaya Sahai Misra was confirmed. The Judgment and order passed in the M.C.A. was not challenged in any court in accordance of the knowledge of the plaintiffs. After finalization of the matter again, the plaintiffs demanded the entire arrears of rent from the defendant but inspite of serving a demand notice, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor paid the rent of the current period. That on dated 24th of July, 1985, another notice was sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. By this notice, arrears of rent was demanded and the tenancy was terminated but the defendant willfully avoided the service of this notice and thereafter another notice dated 20th of August, 1985 was sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and even then the notice sent on official address was refused by the defendant. By this notice, arrears of rent was demanded and the tenancy was terminated but the defendant willfully avoided the service of this notice and thereafter another notice dated 20th of August, 1985 was sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and even then the notice sent on official address was refused by the defendant. In order to avoid the legal complication, another notice was sent on dated 6th of November, 1985 through the department of the defendant and this notice was served on dated 7th of November, 1985. Within the period of notice, neither the defendant paid the rent nor vacated the property in dispute. The rent for the period from 1st of March, 1967 to 14th of July, 1972 was demanded @ Rs. 40/-P.M. and for the period from 15th of July, 1972 to 31st of July, 1985 @ Rs. 50/- and the water tax. Another notice was served on the defendant on dated 13th of October, 1972 for enhancement of the rent @ 25% i.e. from Rs. 40/- per month to Rs. 50/- per month. Hence, the defendant by this notice was required to pay all these rents. The reply on wrong fact was given of the notice and even after the service of notice, rent was not paid to the plaintiffs/landlords and it was averred in the reply that the defendant had deposited the rent in the court and shall continue to deposit thereafter. But no information was given to deposit this rent to the plaintiffs. The copy of the Judgment and order of the Misc. Case and M.C.A. were also sent on demand. That a sum of Rs. 10,817.50/- is due as arrears of rent and damages are also due @ Rs. 50/- p.m. As the defendants failed to vacate the property hence, it was necessitated to file a suit. 3. That the respondent-defendant contested the case filed Written Statement and denied the allegations of the plaint. However, it has been admitted that Sri Gaya Sahai Misra was the owner/landlord of the property and the respondent-defendant was the tenant on his behalf of the property of the dispute at the rate of Rs. 40/- P.M. That the proper reply was given of the notice dated 14th of April 1967 on 6th of May, 1967. However, it has been admitted that Sri Gaya Sahai Misra was the owner/landlord of the property and the respondent-defendant was the tenant on his behalf of the property of the dispute at the rate of Rs. 40/- P.M. That the proper reply was given of the notice dated 14th of April 1967 on 6th of May, 1967. Sri Om Prakash Misra, the rival claimant informed the defendant by the notice dated 12th of April, 1986 that the matter is subjudice in writ petition No. 1976 of 1985 before the High Court and later on the judgment of the appeal has been challenged before the High Court. The information was given to the plaintiffs that the till matter is decided finally by the competent court, it will not be possible for the defendant to pay the rent to the plaintiffs. That no notices were received on dated 6th of November, 1985, 24th of July, 1985 and 20th of August, 1985. However, the proper reply was given of the notice dated 6th of November, 1985 on dated 29th of November, 1985 and it was specifically mentioned that he will pay the rent @ Rs. 40/- p.m. in case plaintiffs satisfy regarding the ownership of the house. The rent had been deposited under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 upto 31st of August, 1985. It was also made clear that the defendant is liable to pay the rent @ Rs. 40/- p.m,. and not at the enhanced rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. as claimed. The detailed account of the rent accrued, deposited and the deductions as house tax and water tax was given in the reply of the notice. In the Written Statement, a full and complete details have been given of the rent deposited in Misc. Case No. 140/1974 in the Court of Munsif South, Lucknow under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. However, alleged that no default was committed by him. A replication was also submitted by the plaintiffs after the written statement before the trial court and the plaintiffs examined Naveen Kumar Misra as P.W.-I and the defendant examined Sri Bhuwan Chand Pandey, D.W.-1. Numerous documents have also been filed. 4. I have heard Sri Madhur Kant Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri M.S. Kotwal, Senior Advocate for the respondents at length and also perused the entire material on records. Numerous documents have also been filed. 4. I have heard Sri Madhur Kant Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri M.S. Kotwal, Senior Advocate for the respondents at length and also perused the entire material on records. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the then learned A.D.J. in reversing the Judgment and order of the trial court committed gross illegality and irregularity. The evidence present on the file and the circumstances established on the basis of the evidence and the law on the point was not considered properly by the learned A.D.J. and the findings recorded by the A.D.J. in the S. C.C. Revision are perverse. That in the revision, the revisional court was required to consider the facts of the case and the revisional court re-appraised the evidence and recorded a finding contrary to the finding of the trial court. Petitioners’ counsel also argued that initially the defendant denied from the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties but afterwards the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted. It is evident from the record that the rent was not paid by the defendant regularly inspite of the demand of notice and inspite of the fact that the notice was served and continued to deposit the rent under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. That after receipt of the notice dated 6th of November, 1985, the defendant was bound to pay the rent to the plaintiffs-landlords and the defendant illegally avoided to pay the rent to the plaintiffs landlords on the pretext that the matter of ownership is subjudice before the High Court whereas no matter was pending before the High Court and after the Judgment of the appeal, respondents was bound to pay the rent to the petitioners in pursuance of the notice. That the rent was deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act at the rate of Rs. 40/- p.m. whereas after 15th of July, 1972, the defendant was required to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. That the notice was served to the defendant for enhancement of the rent but inspite of the service of this notice, rent was not paid @ Rs. 40/- p.m. whereas after 15th of July, 1972, the defendant was required to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. That the notice was served to the defendant for enhancement of the rent but inspite of the service of this notice, rent was not paid @ Rs. 50/- p.m. and after the enforcement of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, 25% of the rent was enhanced as provided in the law and this fact was not considered by the revisional court. However, the defendant-tenant also deducted from the arrears of rent towards the repairs etc., under Section 28 of the Act whereas in accordance of the position of law, the defendant-tenant was not entitled to make any deductions under Section 28 of the Act without complying the conditions provided in the under the Act and that there was a clear case of default and the defendant-tenant was liable to be ejected from the property. Learned Counsel for the respondents disputed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and further argued that in view of the position of law as laid down under Sections 5 and 8 of the Act, respondent was not required to pay the rent @ Rs. 50/- p.m. and Rs. 40/- p.m. was agreed as standard rent as there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the property in dispute, hence, the defendant was justified in depositing the rent under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and in view of the law pronounced by this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, if the rent has been deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act, there will be no default in payment of the rent as Sri Om Prakash Misra, uncle of the petitioners informed the defendant that the matter is subjudice before the High Court in the writ petition, hence, the rent was not paid till the disposal of the matter of the ownership finalized by the High Court. 5. That in view of the averments of the pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is not a controversial point now that the plaintiffs-petitioners are not the owners/landlords of the property in dispute. 5. That in view of the averments of the pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is not a controversial point now that the plaintiffs-petitioners are not the owners/landlords of the property in dispute. It is an undisputed fact that Shri Gaya Sahai Misra was the landlord of the property in dispute and he died on 8 of March, 1967 and on the basis of the will dated 4th of June, 1965 executed by Sri Gaya Sahai Misra, the plaintiffs claimed to be the owner of the property in dispute. It is also an undisputed fact that Major Udai Prakash Misra and Shri Om Prakash Misra were the uncles of the petitioners and the matter of will was contested by Major Udai Prakash Misra and Shri Om Prakash Misra in the civil court, hence, the plaintiffs instituted a Misc. Case No. 108/67, Naveen Kumar Misra and others v. Property of Late Gaya Sahai Misra. Annexure 6 is the copy of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 108/1967. This application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was allowed and a succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners regarding the property of Gaya Sahai Misra including the property in dispute. Aggrieved from this order of the Misc. Case, Om Prakash Misra and another challenged the order before the District Judge, Lucknow in M.C.A. No. 129/1982 and this appeal was decided vide Judgment and order dated 30th of November, 1984 by the then Vth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and the appeal was dismissed and the order passed in Misc. Case No. 108/1967 was upheld. The contention of the petitioners is that the after the Judgment of the M.C.A. No. 129/1982, the matter of ownership of the property in dispute stands finalized and after the Judgment of the appeal, notice was served to the respondent to pay the rent but the rent was not paid on the pretext that Sri Om Prakash Mirsa informed the respondent that the order passed in the appeal has been challenged in the writ petition before the High Court and thereafter a reply was given of the notice that till finalization of the matter, rent can not be paid to the petitioners. Although, petitioners’ counsel argued that no stay order was passed in the writ petition by the High Court and the respondents were in connivance with Sri Om Prakash Misra and procured the letter of Sri Om Prakash Misra not to pay the rent till the finalization of the matter by the High Court and this argument of the petitioners’ counsel has not been disputed by the respondent’s counsel. Hence, it may be presumed that the writ petition was filed by Sri Om Prakash Misra in the High Court but there was no stay order for staying the operation of the Judgement and order passed in the appeal. The tenant-respondent was not justified in not paying the rent to the petitioners. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. Nothing has been argued by the counsel for respondent regarding the validity of notice dated 6th of November, 1985. Although, it has been alleged that the proper reply of the notice dated 6th of November, 1985 was given on dated 29th November, 1985. Even the copies of the Judgments and orders passed in Misc. Case and appeal were also sent but no effort was made to pay the rent. Counsel for the respondent argued that after the subsequent notice, the earlier notice dated 6th of November, 1985 stands waived. But, I disagree with this contention of the counsel for respondents. The subsequent notice and reply were in continuation of the notice dated 6th of November, 1985 and that by no stretch of reasoning, it can be said that by the subsequent development, notice has been waived. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the validity of the notice dated 6th of November, 1965 and in my opinion, the notice dated 6th of November, 1985 is perfectly valid. 6. In the present case, it is most material to be decided as to whether the defendant-respondent committed any default in the payment of the rent if the property is governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 6. In the present case, it is most material to be decided as to whether the defendant-respondent committed any default in the payment of the rent if the property is governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The suit against the tenant for eviction can be instituted only on the ground mentioned in Section 20(2) of the Act and it has been provided by Clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of the Act that : “that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. “ In the present case, the petitioners filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent. It has been alleged in the plaint that inspite of service of notice, defendant failed to pay the rent for the period from 1st of March, 1967 to 14th of July, 1972 @ Rs. 40/- p.m. and for the period from 15th of July, 1972 to 31st of October, 1985 at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. and also argued that in the circumstances of the case even the deposit under Section 30(2) of the Act is not valid and no benefit can be given to the defendant-tenant for depositing the rent under Section 30 (2) of the Act and also argued that the rent under Section 30 (2) was deposited too belated whereas the rent should have been deposited within a period of one month of the receipt of the notice from the plaintiffs whereas the rent was deposited on 25th of July, 1974 @ of Rs. 40/- p.m. for the period from 1st of March, 1967 to 31st of September, 1974 and also argued that the entire rent was not deposited rather the deductions were made for repairs etc. and the remaining amount was deposited and the water tax was not deposited which is also required to be deposited. 7. It is an established position of law that if the entire rent due according to the law has not been paid under Section 30(2) of the Act, then also, a presumption will be drawn of default. and the remaining amount was deposited and the water tax was not deposited which is also required to be deposited. 7. It is an established position of law that if the entire rent due according to the law has not been paid under Section 30(2) of the Act, then also, a presumption will be drawn of default. Although, it is a fact that there was a litigation regarding the ownership of the property in dispute in between the petitioners and Major Udai Prakash Misra and Shri Om Prakash Misra, uncles of the petitioners. It is also an undisputed fact that after the death of Gaya Sahai Misra on dated 8th of March, 1967 on the basis of the will, the plaintiffs claimed the ownership of the property and a demand notice was served to the defendant for payment of the rent as in view of the will, they inherited the property of previous landlord but the respondent replied the notice to the effect that Major Udai Prakash Misra and Shri Om Prakash Misra had also claimed the rent, under these circumstances, it is not possible for him to pay the rent to the plaintiffs. That firstly settle the dispute of ownership in between Major Udai Prakash Misra and Shri Om Prakash Misra, then the rent shall be paid, otherwise, the defendant shall deposit the rent under Section 7-C (2) of U.P. Act 3 of 1947. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that after serving the notice in the year 1967 and the reply of the notice, rent should have been deposited under Section 7-C (2) of the Act No. 3 of 1947 as alleged by the defendant himself but the rent was deposited in the year 1974 under Section 30 (2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and in this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners cited 1989(1) ARC 169, Pyare Lal v. Ist Additional District judge, Kanpur and another. It has been held in this ruling that : “In case the tenant wants to take benefit of the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act. It has been held in this ruling that : “In case the tenant wants to take benefit of the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act. he should make the deposit under Section 30 of the Act within one month from the date of the service of the notice of demand upon him so that on the date of deposit it is deemed that the amount had been paid to the landlord under Section 30(6) of the Act. If however, the deposit under Section 30 of the Act is not made within one month then a tenant cannot be relieved of the default which had already been committed. In the circumstances, it is clear that if any deposit is made under Section 30 of the Act beyond the period of one month from the date of the service of the notice of demand upon the tenant then he cannot get the benefit of such a deposit and, in law, will treat him to be a defaulter liable for ejectment.” Petitioners’ counsel also cited the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1550/1978, Anandi Devi v. Om Prakash, Hon’ble Apex Court held that : “If the tenant failed to comply with the requirements of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, then the deposit under Section 30(2) of the Act is not valid." No other Judgment has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of this position of law, the tenant was required to deposit the rent under Section 7-C (2) of the Act No. 3 of 1947 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice of demand and it has been admitted by the respondent’s counsel also that the notice was received on dated 14th of April, 1967 of the petitioners regarding the demand of rent and the reply of this notice was given which is the Annexure 2 of the writ petition. It has been admitted in the writ petition that the defendant is the tenant of house No. 499/87, Gokaran Nath Road, Hasanganj, Lucknow @ of Rs. 40/- p.m. That one notice has also been received on behalf of Major Udai Prakash Misra and Sri Om Prakash Misra regarding the demand of rent. It has been admitted in the writ petition that the defendant is the tenant of house No. 499/87, Gokaran Nath Road, Hasanganj, Lucknow @ of Rs. 40/- p.m. That one notice has also been received on behalf of Major Udai Prakash Misra and Sri Om Prakash Misra regarding the demand of rent. In these circumstances, it has been alleged that either get the matter settled regarding the ownership, otherwise, the tenant shall be forced to deposit the rent under Section 7-C (2) of the U.P. Act No. Ill of 1947. Annexure 3 is also a notice served on behalf of the petitioners to Sri M.S.Kotwal, Advocate of Major Udai Prakash Misra and Sri Om Prakash Misra and by this notice, it was informed to the respondent that : “They have no objections if the amount of rent due is deposited in Court under Section 7-B of the U.P. Act No. Ill of1947.” That the petitioners’ counsel argued that after serving the notice dated 13th of May, 1967, the rent was not deposited as alleged by the respondents under Section 7-C(2) of the U.P. Act No. Ill of 1947 and in view of the Judgment of this court, if the rent has not been deposited under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 within a period of one month, then no benefit can be given to the defendant in order to evade the default. The Judgement of the court is fully applicable to the facts of the case. After receipt of the notice of demand, respondent was bound to deposit the rent under Section 7-C(2) of the U.P. Act No. Ill of 1947 within a period of one month but the rent was not deposited. Hence, I agree with the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that no benefit can be given to the defendant on the basis of the deposit under Section 30(2) of the Act XIII of 1972. Although, the two persons claimed themselves to be the owners of the property, hence, the tenant was justified in depositing the rent in the court but the rent was deposited in the year 1974 whereas the notice was served in the year 1967. Although, the two persons claimed themselves to be the owners of the property, hence, the tenant was justified in depositing the rent in the court but the rent was deposited in the year 1974 whereas the notice was served in the year 1967. Neither the rent was paid nor the rent was deposited under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and it is a clear case of default and the subsequent deposits after considerable delay will not give any benefit to the respondent-tenant. It has also been argued by the counsel for the respondent that he was justified in not paying the rent to the petitioners after the receipt of notice of demand as the ownership was disputed. The litigation was pending in between the petitioners and their uncles and when the matter was settled, then earlier to that, rent was deposited. Under these circumstances, respondent shall be justified in not paying the rent rather depositing the rent under Section 30 of the Act. But in this case, the rent was to be deposited under Section 7-C(2) of U.P. Act No. Ill of 1947 within a period of one month, rather the rent was deposited after about 7 years after the receipt of the notice of demand whereas the rent should have been deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice of the demand. Learned counsel for the respondent also argued regarding the accrual of cause of action, hence he stated that the cause of action accrued only after final settlement of the matter of the ownerships in between the petitioners and their uncles. But after receipt of the notice of the demand by the rival parties, then rent should have been deposited within a period of one month but the rent was not deposited within a period of one month, hence, no benefit can be given to the respondent of depositing the rent under Section 30(2) of the Act. 8. It is also an undisputed fact that in depositing the rent under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, deductions were made for repairs and the remaining amount was deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act. 8. It is also an undisputed fact that in depositing the rent under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, deductions were made for repairs and the remaining amount was deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act. It is also most relevant in the circumstances of the case whether the tenant-respondent was entitled to make deductions in the head of repairs etc., without complying the conditions of Section 28 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It has been provided in Section 28 (1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 that : “(l) If the landlord fails to carry out white-washing or repairs as required by sub-section (2) of Section 26, the tenant may, by notice in writing, call upon him to carry out the same within one month from the date of service of such notice." For deductions under Section 28 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, it is required to be observed by the tenant firstly to serve a notice to the landlord for carrying out the repairs or white washing and if the landlord fails to carry out the white washing or repairs, then the repairs can be carried out by the tenant. It has not been alleged by the tenant-respondent that any notice required under Section 28 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was served to the petitioners also. Without complying with the condition required in Section 28, the respondent can not be said justified to make deductions for repairs etc. If the landlord fails to carry out the repairs etc. Without complying with the condition required in Section 28, the respondent can not be said justified to make deductions for repairs etc. If the landlord fails to carry out the repairs etc. within a period of one month from the date of service of notice, then only the tenant is justified to carry out the repairs and further in sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, it has been provided that : “(2) Where the cost of the requisite white washing or repairs is likely to exceed the amount of (two months rent) in a year, then the tenant in his notice shall also intimate to the landlord his willingness to pay enhanced rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.” But no notice to this effect has been served by the tenant, hence, the tenant is not entitled for making any deduction under Section 28 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 without complying the condition and in this connection, counsel for the petitioners also cited the Judgement of this court reported in 1984 ARC 111, Panna Lal v. Prescribed Authority (Munsif), Ghaziabad and another (Allahabad High Court). It has been held in this ruling that : “U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sec. 28(1)-Order passed thereunder-Propriety of-Unless a finding is recorded that notice contemplated thereunder was sent and was served-Order would be violation of Section 28(1) -Thus, invalid.” Counsel for the petitioners further cited 1983(2) ARC 188, Mohd. Rafiq v. Babu Ram and another and the same principle has also been laid down in the said Judgment. It has been provided that the notice contemplated under Section 28(1) is a sine qua non. Hence, on the basis of these judgments and the mandatory provisions of Section 28, I am of the opinion that no deduction can be made under Section 28 of the Act without serving any notice to the landlord and it has not been disputed even by the counsel for the respondent that no notice as contemplated under Section 28 of the Act has been served and while depositing the rent under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the deductions were made only for the repairs etc. On the basis of law, the tenant-respondent was not justified in making deductions of the rent and it is also an undisputed fact that even after the receipt of the notice dated 6th of November, 1985, the rent accrued since 1st of March, 1967 was not paid rather the reply of notice was given informing the petitioners that the rent had already been deposited under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and as the rent has already been deposited, hence, the tenant is not required to pay the rent afresh. I have already stated that the rent was deposited under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 after making deductions for carrying out the repairs etc. as well as house tax and water tax whereas according to the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972, the tenant was bound to pay the water tax also and the entire amount due was not deposited under Section 20(2) of the Act. The respondent-tenant is not entitled for any benefit and certainly the conduct of the respondent shall be of a defaulter. I have already stated that the deposit has not been made within a period of one month from the date of service of the notice of demand, hence, due to this reason also, the tenant-respondent is not entitled for the benefit of deposits irrespective of the fact that the rent was deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act, the defendant committed default in payment of the rent. In the complicated circumstances of the case, it is also material to be decided that how much should be the rent of the property in dispute. Whether the respondent is a tenant @ Rs. 40/- p.m. or whether he is a tenant @ Rs.50/- p.m. as alleged by the petitioners. It is an undisputed and established fact that the defendant is residing in the property in dispute as tenant since the life time of late Gaya Sahai Misra earlier to the year 1965 at an agreed rent of Rs. 40/- p.m. and the petitioners also demanded the rent vide the notice dated 6th of November, 1985 for the period from 1st of March, 1967 to 14th of July, 1972 @ Rs. 40/- p.m. and the petitioners also demanded the rent vide the notice dated 6th of November, 1985 for the period from 1st of March, 1967 to 14th of July, 1972 @ Rs. 40/- p.m. but the petitioners’ counsel stated that after the enforcement of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, w.e.f. 15th of July, 1972, petitioners-landlords were entitled for enhancement of the rent to 25%. In view of the provisions of Section 5 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, if the tenancy is continuing since before the commencement of the Act, in respect of a building to which the old Act was applicable, the landlord may, by notice in writing, given within three months from the commencement of this Act enhance the rent payable therefore to an amount not exceeding the standard rent and it has been provided that the rent can be enhanced to 25% of the agreed or reasonable rent . Petitioners’ counsel stated that in the present case, the agreed rent was Rs. 40/-p.m. and in view of the Section 5 of the Act, the landlords-petitioners were entitled to enhance the rent upto 25% i.e. upto Rs. 10/- p.m. and for enhancement of the rent under Section 5 of the Act, it is mandatory that the tenancy is continuing at the time of commencing of the Act in respect of a building to which the old Act was applicable and the notice must have been served within a period of three months from the date of commencement of the Act. It is also an undisputed fact that the defendant-respondent was a tenant of the property in dispute from earlier to the year 1965 and it is also an undisputed fact that the Act was applicable to the building in question. Petitioners’ counsel argued that the notice in writing was served within a period of three months of the enforcement of the Act. Annexure No. 4 is the copy of the notice and by this notice, the defendant-tenant was required to pay the rent @ Rs. 50/- p.m. w.e.f. 15th of July, 1972. That the reply of this notice was given which is Annexure 5 of the writ petition and it has been alleged in para 6 of reply of the Annexure 5 that : “My client is not at all liable to pay rent w.e.f. 16.7.72 at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. w.e.f. 15th of July, 1972. That the reply of this notice was given which is Annexure 5 of the writ petition and it has been alleged in para 6 of reply of the Annexure 5 that : “My client is not at all liable to pay rent w.e.f. 16.7.72 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month as alleged. He per the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 is liable to pay the same agreed rent Rs. 40/- per month which is already much higher than the rent per month calculated by adding 25% on reasonable annual rent of the house in question.” Learned Counsel for the respondents disputed the act of the petitioners regarding the enhancement of the rent and he argued that according to the assessment of the property in dispute in the Nagar Palika records, the rent of the property in dispute was Rs. 30/- p.m. and if 25% is added in Rs. 30/-, then it will come about to Rs. 37/- p.m. From earlier, the respondent had been paying the rent @ Rs. 40/- p.m. which is higher than this enhanced rent and in these circumstances inspite of the fact that Section 5 of the Act provides for enhancement of the rent. The rent shall not be enhanced and the respondent was not unjustified in not considering the demand notice of the petitioners for enhancement of the rent @ Rs. 50/- p.m. in view of Section 5 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent attracted the attention towards Section 5 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 regarding the standard rent and also placed reliance on Section 2(k) which provides the definition of standard rent. 50/- p.m. in view of Section 5 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent attracted the attention towards Section 5 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 regarding the standard rent and also placed reliance on Section 2(k) which provides the definition of standard rent. It has been provided in this provision that : ”Standard rent, subject to the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10, means— (i) in the case of a building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of commencement of this Act— (a) Where there is both an agreed rent payable therefore at such commencement as well as reasonable annual rent (which in this Act has the same meaning as in Section 2(f) of the old Act, reproduced in the Schedule), the agreed rent, or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 percent, thereon, whichever is greater.” On the strength of this provision, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the standard rent is the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 percent whichever is greater. In the present case, the reasonable rent was @ Rs. 30/- p.m. and by adding 25% in Rs. 30/-, it will come to about Rs. 37/- p.m. and the agreed rent from earlier was @ Rs. 40/- p.m. which was greater to the reasonable rent. Hence, nothing will be enhanced under Section 5 of the Act. I disagree with the argument of the counsel for the respondent and I am of the opinion that if there is agreed rent, then the standard rent will be after adding 25% in the agreed rent. In the present case, after adding 25% in agreed rent of Rs. 40/- p.m., the rent will come to Rs. I disagree with the argument of the counsel for the respondent and I am of the opinion that if there is agreed rent, then the standard rent will be after adding 25% in the agreed rent. In the present case, after adding 25% in agreed rent of Rs. 40/- p.m., the rent will come to Rs. 50/- p.m. It has also been provided in Section 8(2) of the Act that : “(2) Where the assessment of a building occupied by a tenant is lower than the agreed rent payable therefor, the District Magistrate, on an application of the tenant or of his own motion, may, after giving to the landlord an opportunity of being heard, direct the local authority concerned to enhance the assessment in accordance with the agreed rent with effect from the date from which the agreed rent has been payable or the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in the law relating to that local authority, the assessment shall be corrected accordingly.” In the present case, the assessment of the building as occupied by the tenant was less than the agreed rent and in these circumstances, the tenant should have approached the District Magistrate for correction of the assessment in accordance of the agreed rent. Moreover, in the present case, the assessment was continuing since from the year 1953 whereas the respondent was inducted in the building as tenant earlier to the year 1965 @ agreed rent of Rs. 40/- p.m. but the respondent had not approached the District Magistrate as provided under Section 8(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hence the respondent is not competent to agitate that the petitioners are not entitled to enhance the rent by 25% after the enforcement of the Act. I am totally unable to understand the arguments of the counsel for the respondent that inspite of the Section 5 of the Act and keeping in view Section 2(k) of the Act, no rent can be enhanced as the agreed rent was more than the reasonable rent plus 25%. This rent of Rs. 40/- p.m. was continuing from earlier to the year 1965 and the standard rent as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act shows that 25% is to be added in the agreed rent. This rent of Rs. 40/- p.m. was continuing from earlier to the year 1965 and the standard rent as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act shows that 25% is to be added in the agreed rent. The portion has also been given in case if there is no agreed rent, but there is reasonable annual rent and also where there is neither the agreed rent nor the reasonable rent and in the present case, there was agreed rent, hence, in view of the Section 5 of the Act, petitioners were entitled to enhance the rent and on the part of the petitioners only, the notice was required to be served and admittedly, in the present case, the notice was served by the petitioners for enhancement of the rent. 9. In this connection, counsel for the petitioners also cited the Judgments of this court reported in 1981 ARC 617, Ram Gopal and another v. D.J., Banda and others, 1983(2) ARC 525, Ram Dutt Pathak v. District Judge, Nainital and others, 1985(2) ARC 58, Ram Narain Sharma v. Smt. Savitri Devi and another, 1991(1) ARC 467, Hanuman Prasad v. Illrd Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and others and 1986(1) ARC 174, Smt. Savitri Devi v. IVth Additional District Judge, Agra and others. It has been held in these judgments that the enhancement of rent with an additional 25% present in Section 3(k)(i) (a) is applicable to those cases where there is agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to create a confusion in the agreed rent, reasonable rent or the standard rent and the position has been clarified by the abovementioned Judgments of this court. In the present case, the agreed rent was greater than the reasonable rent, hence, 25% shall be added in the agreed rent and not in the reasonable assessed rent. On the basis of the above reasons, only an inference can be drawn that after enforcement of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the petitioners shall be entitled to receive the rent @ of Rs. 50/- p.m. They were required to serve a notice within three months from the date of the enforcement of the Act and admittedly, the notice was served in this connection within three months. The respondent was bound to pay the rent @ of Rs. 50/- p.m. They were required to serve a notice within three months from the date of the enforcement of the Act and admittedly, the notice was served in this connection within three months. The respondent was bound to pay the rent @ of Rs. 50/- p.m. from 15th of July, 1972 and admittedly the rent was deposited under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 @ of Rs. 40/- p.m. and not @ of Rs. 50/- p.m. inspite of the fact that the rent was deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act, the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of this deposit as the short amount was deposited even after the receipt of the notice dated 6th of November, 1985 and the respondent failed to deposit the rent @ of Rs. 50/- p.m. He certainly committed default in the payment of the rent. 10. Counsel for the petitioners also argued that the provision of Order XV Rule 5 of C.P.C. is mandatory and in view of this provision, the tenant-respondent should deposit the rent in the suit and is not entitled to continue to deposit the rent in case of Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. That more than four months, rent was not deposited as required by the provisions, hence, the respondent committed default and is liable to be evicted due to this reason also. In this connection, petitioners’ counsel cited ( 2006 (1) A.R.C. 341 , Haider Abbas v. Additional District Judge and others (Allahabad High Court), AIR 2005 SC 3753 , Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani and in view of these judgments also, respondent was liable to deposit the rent in the S.C.C. suit and was not justified to continue to deposit the rent under Section 30(2) and in the Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rent should be deposited upto 7th of every month and undisputedly, the month to month rent was not deposited even in the case under Section 30(2) of the Act. In all these circumstances, an inference can be drawn that on the date of service of notice dated 6th of November, 1985, the defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent and he failed to pay the entire rent accrued within period of the notice. In all these circumstances, an inference can be drawn that on the date of service of notice dated 6th of November, 1985, the defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent and he failed to pay the entire rent accrued within period of the notice. He illegally deducted the amount in the head of repairs and other payments also and did not deposit the rent @ Rs. 50/-p.m. and that the amount was short, hence, the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Section 30(2) of the Act and certainly the defendant is a defaulter in the payment of rent. Respondent is also not entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) as the entire rent demanded at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. was not deposited on the first date of hearing alongwith interest, costs etc. 11. That on dated 27th of February, 2007, one application supported with an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners with the prayer that now the rent/damages of the tenement in dispute be enhanced from Rs. 40/- p.m. to Rs. 3,000/- p.m. In the accompanying affidavit, it has been alleged that the respondent is residing in the property in dispute @ Rs. 40/-p.m. since the year 1967 and since the year 1967, the respondent has not enhanced a single penny towards the rent and even the tenement under his tenancy has been assessed @ Rs. 2700/- annually in the Municipal Record and the respondent has adopted all kinds of dilatory tactics to remain in possession of the property without paying any reasonable rent. That the case was listed several times but the respondents avoided the disposal of the case. That the house in dispute is a double storied house having 4 rooms and situated on the main Gokaran Nath Road and in the heart of the city. That the disputed property is situated adjacent to both the residential and commercial properties and the present market value of the said property is not less than Rs. 15 Lakhs. And in these circumstances the court may enhance the rent/damages of the disputed property from Rs. 40/- p.m. to Rs. That the disputed property is situated adjacent to both the residential and commercial properties and the present market value of the said property is not less than Rs. 15 Lakhs. And in these circumstances the court may enhance the rent/damages of the disputed property from Rs. 40/- p.m. to Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Respondent’s counsel disputed this application and orally opposed and it has been stated that the property in dispute although has got four rooms but the rooms are very small and it is wrong to allege that the property in dispute is situated in the heart of the city adjacent to both the residential and commercial properties. That there is no justification to enhance the rent. One can not deny from the existing rising trend in the value of the real estate. Value of the real estate is multiplying day by day and undisputedly the property in dispute was let out earlier to the year 1967 and the price of the every item including the property in dispute has been increased and multiplied in several times. Now-a-days, it is ridiculous to have four rooms @ Rs. 40 or Rs. 50/- p.m. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that the value of the property has not been increased several folds since the year 1967 and it is also material to be decided that what should be the rent at present of the property. Petitioners himself have stated that at present assessment of the property has been enhanced @ Rs. 2700/- annually in the Municipal record and it is also undisputed fact that the property is situated adjacent to the Lucknow University and the litigation in between the parties is pending since the year 1986 for the last more than 20 years. Although the suit was filed in the year 1986 and the dispute between the landlord and tenant is old as of the year 1965 after the death of the previous owner/landlord. There is a checkered long history of the litigation in between the parties over the property in dispute. I think that there is a justification for enhancement of the rent/damages at the reasonable rate. Although, it can not be decided that what should be the actual rate of the rent in the circumstances of the case. But considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that Rs. I think that there is a justification for enhancement of the rent/damages at the reasonable rate. Although, it can not be decided that what should be the actual rate of the rent in the circumstances of the case. But considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that Rs. 1,000/- p.m. will be most reasonable rent/damages of the property in dispute. Although the learned counsel for the respondent disputed the competency of this court relating to enhancement of the rent/damages. The damages may be enhanced during the pendency of the matter and the damages can be awarded at the reasonable rate over and above the agreed rent and in the present case, when the rent remained Rs. 40/- p.m. since the year 1967, there is a justification for enhancement of the rent. One will have to adopt the reasonable approach for determination of the rent/damages. In the present case, it will be just and proper to award damages @ of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. from the date of pendency of this writ petition till the date of actual ejectment of the respondents and in this context, learned counsel for the petitioners also cited 2006 (3) A.R.C. 286, Fakir Chandra Govila v. Sri Suresh Chandra Agarwal. It has been held in this ruling that :- “Suit for arrears of rent and ejecetment filed-Suit dismissed- Revision filed-allowed-Remanded to trial court for decision-After remand suit was decreed by trial court-Revision filed-Allowed-Present writ filed-Admit-Writ court can increase the rent to a reasonable extent-Tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards rent per month w.e.f. 1.9.2006 till further orders-Rent to be increased every five years-List for hearing in ordinary course.” I have perused the above Judgment of this court and in view of this Judgement even in a pending case, the court can enhance the rent @ Rs. 2,000/- On the strength of this Judgment as well as on the ground of reasonable approach, it will be more justiciable to enhance the rent @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. As I have stated above that the value has increased of every item including the real estate in many manifold, hence, it is decided that from dated 12th of September, 2000, petitioners shall be entitled to recover the damages @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. till the date of actual ejectment of the respondents. 12. 1,000/- p.m. As I have stated above that the value has increased of every item including the real estate in many manifold, hence, it is decided that from dated 12th of September, 2000, petitioners shall be entitled to recover the damages @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. till the date of actual ejectment of the respondents. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the court is of the opinion that the respondent has committed default in the payment of rent and he failed to deposit the rent under Section 30(2) within a period of one month from the date of notice of demand and the enhanced rent at the Rs. 50/- p.m. as provided under Section 5 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Moreover, the respondent deducted the amount towards the head of repairs without complying with the condition of Section 28 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Revisional Court committed gross illegality in reversing the Judgement of the trial court and I have perused the Judgment of the trial court and I am of the opinion that the Judgment of the trial court is perfectly justified whereas the revisional court has failed to consider the law involved in the case and also established and admitted facts. The Revisional Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the fact of the trial court. There is no justification to uphold the Judgment of the revisional court. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the suit of the ejectment deserves to be decreed and the Judgment of the trial court deserves to be restored. 13. The writ petition is allowed with costs. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued and the order dated 17th of May, 2000 passed in SCC Revision No. 112/98 is quashed and the S.C.C. Suit No. 193/1986, Naveen Kumar Misra v. Bhuvan Chandra Pandey is decreed according to the terms of Judgment and decree of the trial court. Petitioners shall also be entitled to recover the arrears of rent and expenses for the use and occupation after the adjustment of the amount paid under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 upto the date of Judgment of revisional court at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m.. Petitioners shall also be entitled to recover the damages @ Rs. 50/- p.m.. Petitioners shall also be entitled to recover the damages @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. since 11.9.2000 till the date of actual possession of the property in dispute. However, in the circumstance of the present case, the respondent is allowed three months time to vacate the property in dispute. The writ petition is allowed with costs accordingly. ———