S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) AT the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of respondent even though the case was taken up in the revised list. Accordingly, only the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard. ( 2 ) THIS is landladys writ petition. Landlady filed S. C. C. Suit No. 56 of 1991 against tenant respondent for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. Suit was decreed by J. S. C. C. , Aligarh on 22. 1. 2007. Against the said judgment and decree tenant respondent filed S. C. C. Revision no. 79 of 2000. A. D. J. , Court No. 3, Aligarh allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 9. 5. 2003, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction. However landlord was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court held that deposit of rent made by the tenant under section 30 of u. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not valid. However Lower Revisional Court held otherwise and decided that the said deposit was valid. For taking benefit of section 20 (4) of the act, ter. ant has to deposit the requisite amount after adjusting the amount deposited by him under section 30 of the Act. Accordingly, if it is held that deposit under section 30 of the Act was valid, then tenant would be entitled to the protection of section 20 (4) of the Act otherwise not. Tenant had deposited Rs. 2880/-under section 30 of the Act and Rs. 7253. 65/- under section 20 (4) of the act. Trial Court had held that tenant was required to deposit Rs. 8085/- in order to avail benefit to section 20 (4) of the Act, which reads as under : "20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent)together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlords costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground : provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section- (a) the expression first hearing means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; (b) the expression cost of the suit includes one-half of the amount of counsels fee taxable for a contested suit. " ( 4 ) LANDLADY sent notice of demand of rent and termination of tenancy on 2. 11. 1989, tenant admitted receipt of this notice. Even in his application, which he filed before Munsif for depositing the rent under section 30 of the Act, tenant did not state that he had sent the rent to the landlady through money order. In the Division Bench authority of this Court in H. Abbas v. A. D. J. , 2006 62 ALR 552, it has been held that deposit of rent made under section 30 of the Act without complying with its provisions is not valid. In the Division Bench authority of this Court in H. Abbas v. A. D. J. , 2006 62 ALR 552, it has been held that deposit of rent made under section 30 of the Act without complying with its provisions is not valid. Under section 30 of the Act rent can be deposited only when it is refused to be accepted by the landlord and not otherwise. In this regard, reference may also be made to "e. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy, 2002 49 ALR (SC) 759. " ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, in my opinion, the view taken by the Lower Revisional court is erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. Writ petition is therefore allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is restored. ( 6 ) TENANT respondent shall be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the shop in dispute @ Rs. 1000/- per month with effect from today till actual eviction in execution proceedings. This direction is being issued as property in dispute is a shop situate in Aligarh. However as at the time of hearing no one appeared for the tenant respondent, hence before issuing parwana dakhal/writ of possession on the execution application, which may be filed by the landlady in pursuance of this judgment, Executing Court must issue notice to the tenant. Petition Allowed. .