Devendra Pratap Singh,J.: - 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments dated 20.5.2004 and 21.5.2008 by which both the courts below have decreed the eviction suit filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant. 3. The respondent landlord instituted a SCC Suit No. 150 of 2002 against the petitioner tenant for eviction and arrears of rent inter alia with the allegation that the disputed shop no. 142 situated in Mohalla Rangsaz, Sadar Bazar, Meerut was purchased by the respondent landlord vide registered sale deed dated 9.8.2001 wherein the petitioner was a sitting tenant at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month. It was further stated that the disputed shop came into the exclusive share of Smt. Parmila Jain wife of late Hans Kumar Jain and his other heirs in a family settlement between her and Anil Kumar son of Jagdish Prasad Jain, father of Anil Kumar Jain and Hans Kumar Jain. It was further pleaded that after the sale deed, the respondent became the landlord and entitled to receive the rent but despite demand rent was not paid and as such he served a registered notice dated 30.7.2002 claiming rent w.e.f. 19.8.2000 to 31.8.2002 which was neither paid nor the premises vacated and thus the suit for realization for a sum of Rs. 2931/- being rent for 24 months and 13 days apart from tax and other amounts. 4. The petitioner tenant contested the suit with the allegation that Jagdish Prasad Jain was the undisputed owner and landlord of the disputed shop and during his life time he directed the petitioner to pay rent to his son Anil Kumar Jain and which rent he was paying. However, upon receipt of notice from Parmila Jain stating that she is entitled to receive the rent on the basis of some family partition, the petitioner brought it to the notice of Shri Anil Kumar Jain asking him to clarify the position but Anil Kumar Jain himself claimed to be the landlord and therefore, the petitioner started depositing rent under Section 30 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Misc. Case No. 9 of 1999 impleading Anil Kumar Jain and Parmila Jain as parties and this case was decided in his favour on 16.2.2001. With these allegations he claimed that he was not a defaulter. Case No. 9 of 1999 impleading Anil Kumar Jain and Parmila Jain as parties and this case was decided in his favour on 16.2.2001. With these allegations he claimed that he was not a defaulter. It was further pleaded that prior to the first date of hearing he deposited Rs. 5,000/-, which was much more than the alleged outstanding without adjusting the amount deposited under Section 30 (2) of the Act and therefore, also he is entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 5. After the parties had led their evidence, though the courts came to the conclusion that the petitioner had deposited more than entire amount on the first date of hearing, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act as he had denied the title of the respondent landlord. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act was unconditional and which has also been mentioned in the judgment but the courts below, illegally, picking out certain averments in the written statement and his statement recorded during trial has held that it was a case of denial of title and therefore, have illegally denied benefit of protection of Section 20(4) of the Act. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that the entire amount as required under Section 20(4) of the Act had been deposited on the first date of hearing. 8. The question is whether the deposit was unconditional. Both the courts below have recorded categorical findings that there is denial of title by the tenant and therefore, despite deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act and despite using the term "unconditional", the suit has been decreed. The courts below have referred to certain paragraphs of the written statement, the oral statement of the tenant to record the aforesaid finding. The Apex Court in the case of Ghoorey Lal Vs. Sheo Murti Gupta and another [1995 (2) ARC] has construed the following paragraph as having the effect of denial of title; "That though the respondent, in the above circumstances, does not admit to being the tenant of the plaintiff, still, without prejudice to his rights regarding the rate of rent, has deposited on September 21, 1978, the entire alleged rent from August 1, 1975 to July 31, 1978 at the rate of Rs. 10 per month along with cost of the suit and interest thereon, in total Rs. 553.25 by tender dated September, 21, 1978 in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad in Sheo Murti Gupta Vs. Gooreylal, Suit No. 335 of 1978. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to the protection given by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against eviction." Similar are the averments made by the petitioner in his written statement and there is also denial in his statement. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the approach of the courts below was justified in the present facts of the case. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mam Chand Pal Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi [2002(1) ARC 370] to contend that both the courts below have taken a hyper-technical view in a beneficial piece of legislation. In Mam Chand's case (supra) the facts were entirely different. There the question was whether entire amounts had been deposited on the first hearing and whether excess money deposited under one head can be adjusted in another, and in this context the observations were made. No doubt in such a legislation a technical view ought not be taken, but in the present case, both the courts, as a matter of fact, have found denial of title, which does not appear to be erroneous. 10. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.