JUDGMENT Devendra Pratap Singh,J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent-caveator. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated 8.7.2005 and 6.11.2009 by which the landlord's suit for arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed by both the courts below. 3. The respondent-landlord instituted SCC suit no. 329 of 2002 against the petitioner with the allegation that he had purchased old house no. 88/430 (New no. 88/437), Humayun Bagh, Chamanganj, Kanpur through a registered sale deed dated 24.12.1996 where the petitioner was a tenant in a room on the first floor at Rs.5/- a month. Despite? knowledge and notice of transfer, he did not pay the rent from the date of purchase and thus a notice dated 19.8.2002 was served on him but even after receipt of the notice, neither he tendered rent nor vacated the premises but gave a reply questioning the very title of the landlord and thus, the suit for arrears of rent and eviction. 4. The petitioner contested the suit inter-alia with the allegation that he was a tenant from the time of the previous landlord Mohd. Sami of one room, tin shed, courtyard, kitchen, bathroom etc. on the first floor of the disputed building at Rs.7.20 per month and was also a tenant of one room on the ground floor at Rs.8.65 per month and the single tenancy was Rs.15.85 per month and a part of the building about 100 sq. yard was purchased by the landlord while the remaining part about 167 sq. yard was purchased by others and since there was no splitting of the tenancy after the sale and the landlords were not accepting rent, he deposited it under section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred as the Act). 5. The trial court framed as many as 7 issues including with regard to the rate of rent, default, splitting of tenancy etc. and after the parties led their respective evidence, it returned a finding that the rate of rent was Rs.5/- a month and that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent from the time of purchase and it was a case of splitting of tenancy within the knowledge of the tenant and since the deposit under section 30 of the Act was illegal, it decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision which has affirmed the finding returned by the trial court. 6. The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that none of the courts below have recorded a finding of 4 months default and they have erred in not taking note of deposit under section 30 of the Act and in support thereof he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Harcharan Singh Vs. Smt. Shivani and others. The trial court while deliberating upon the issue nos. 3 and 4, has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner could not prove that the landlords had ever denied acceptance of rent enabling him to make deposit under section 30 of the Act. It also found that the case set up for deposit was that since there was no division of tenancy amongst the purchasers, he could not tender the rent. The courts below also found that the petitioner was in default since time of purchase. So far as the ratio as laid-down in Harcharan Singh's case (Supra) is concerned, it would not apply as in the present case the very deposit under section 30 of the Act has been held to be illegal. Thus, argument cannot be accepted. 7. No other point has been urged. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.