JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments dated 1.8.2009 and 7.4.2010 by which both the courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent landlord for eviction and arrears of rent. 3. The respondent landlord instituted a SCC Suit No. 49 of 2002 claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner tenant inter alia with the allegation that Late Zaheer Husain, the father of the landlord was the owner of the disputed shop where the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month apart from water tax at Rs. 9.60/- per month but he defaulted in payment of rent and water tax from 1.1.1994. Water tax was due from 1.10.1972 to 31.3.1987 at Rs. 8/- per month, and while it was payable at the rate of Rs. 9.60/- from 1.4.1987 to 30.4.2002. Despite notice dated 3.2.2002 being served on him, neither it was paid nor the premises vacated. 4. The petitioner tenant contested the suit inter alia with the allegation that he had remained a tenant of the disputed premises from the time of the father of the landlord and the rent earlier was Rs. 70/- per month but was increased to Rs. 80/- per month in 1980 which included all taxes but when he sought to tender rent on 1.1.1994 it was refused and therefore, he sent it by money order and upon refusal he deposited the same under Section 30 in Misc. Case No. 119 of 1994 where the entire rent uptill 30.6.2000 has already been deposited. It was also stated that on the first date of hearing he has deposited the entire amount and therefore, was entitled to the protection under Section 20(4) of the Act. 5. After the parties led their evidence, both the courts below found that admittedly, water tax was never deposited by the petitioner even at the time of deposit on the first hearing. 6. It is urged that courts below had erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) despite the fact that he has deposited the entire amount at the first date of hearing after adjusting the amount already deposited under Section 30. 7. 6. It is urged that courts below had erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) despite the fact that he has deposited the entire amount at the first date of hearing after adjusting the amount already deposited under Section 30. 7. A perusal of the judgment shows that though the rent was deposited under Section 30 but water tax was never deposited and though a demand was raised, the petitioner came up with the objection that the rent of Rs. 80/- was inclusive of water tax. The courts below have found that in view of Section 7 of the Act there being no written contract to the contrary, the landlord was also entitled to water tax and admittedly the said amount was neither deposited under Section 30 nor along with the deposit at the first hearing and therefore, the petitioner was held not entitled of benefit of Section 20(4). In the present case, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the court through the entire record, he has failed to show deposit of water tax prior to 2002 and therefore, the judgment of the courts below cannot be faulted. 8. No other point has been urged. 9. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.