JUDGMENT S.U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No.3 Munna Lal filed S.C.C. Suit No. 190 of 1986 against tenant petitioner for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. Suit was decreed by J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar through judgment and decree dated 25.7.1995. Against the said judgment and decree tenant petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 126 of 1995, which was dismissed on 13.12.1996 by IXth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar, hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute is situate in Kanpur Nagar and contains one tinshed one kothari and one khaparail on the ground floor. Rent is Rs. 20/- per month. 4. Tenant had deposited some rent before Munsif under section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 in Misc. Case No. 909/70 of 1978. Rent from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1985 was deposited under the said case. 5. Landlord gave two notices one on 5.9.1980 and the other on 24.11.1980. In the first notice, landlord expressed his willingness to accept the rent directly. However, in spite of that tenant continued to deposit the rent under section 30 of the Act. Thereafter, second notice dated 24.1.1986 was given terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent w.e.f. 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1985. Copy of first notice is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In Para-4 of the said notice, it was clearly mentioned that: "My client is willing to accept the rent. You are also requested to show the entire tenders for the rent deposited by you in the aforesaid misc. case so that my client would be able to withdraw the said amount. I thereafter, it was categorically mentioned that: I therefore call upon you to kindly restrain yourself from depositing the rent due against you in the aforesaid misc. case and pay the entire arrears of rent directly to my client as he is willing to accept the rent." Through the said notice (first notice) tenancy was not terminated. It was a pure and simple notice signifying the willingness to accept the rent as required by section 30 (1) of the Act, which is quoted below: "30. case and pay the entire arrears of rent directly to my client as he is willing to accept the rent." Through the said notice (first notice) tenancy was not terminated. It was a pure and simple notice signifying the willingness to accept the rent as required by section 30 (1) of the Act, which is quoted below: "30. Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances: (1) If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it. 6. Second notice dated 24.1.1986 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said notice, it was mentioned that earlier through notice dated 5.9.1980 landlord had indicated his willingness to accept the rent, however, in spite of that, rent was deposited under section 30, which was not valid. Through the said notice, tenancy was terminated. Second notice was replied on 21.2.1986, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the said reply, it was mentioned that rent from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1985 had been deposited under section 30 of the Act. In the said reply notice, it was mentioned that landlord never expressed the willingness to directly take the rent by hand (dasti). However in the reply notice, it was no where denied that notice dated 5.9.1980 was received by the tenant. 7. In Para-2 of the plaint, it was mentioned that notice dated 5.9.1980 was received by the tenant. 8. Both the Courts below rightly held that after receiving the notice dated 5.9.1980, it was not permissible for the tenant to deposit the rent under section 30 of the Act. Deposits of rent after receiving the said notice were not valid. 9. In my opinion the view taken by the both the Courts below is perfectly legal. In this regard, reference may be made to Division Bench authority of this Court in H Abbas v. A.D.J., 1 and Supreme Court authority in E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy.2 10. Deposits of rent after receiving the said notice were not valid. 9. In my opinion the view taken by the both the Courts below is perfectly legal. In this regard, reference may be made to Division Bench authority of this Court in H Abbas v. A.D.J., 1 and Supreme Court authority in E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy.2 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the first notice dated 5.9.1980 was not the basis of the suit and the said notice stood waived by the second notice dated 24.1.1986. I do not agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner in the least. First notice was only under section 30 (1) of the Act signifying willingness in wiring to accept the rent. No suit could be filed on the said notice. Suit was filed after terminating the tenancy through the notice dated 24.1.1986. 11. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. 12. Tenant-petitioner is granted one year's time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of one year he will willingly vacate and hand over possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of one year, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6.000/ [at the rate of Rs. 500/per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. 3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date (after adjusting any amount already deposited and amount of Rs. 3,500/- paid to the landlord through draft on 30.7.2008) before J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to landlord respondent. 13. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual eviction. 14. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs. 1,500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual eviction. 14. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs. 6,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of one year then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after one year till actual eviction. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application. Writ Petition Dismissed.