Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 17.5.2007 and 25.4.2008 by which the eviction suit of the respondent landlord has been decreed by both the courts below. 3. The respondent landlord filed Suit No. 4 of 2005 before the Judge Small Causes, Bareilly with the allegation that he was the owner and landlord of the disputed premises occupied by the petitioner tenant at the rate of Rs. 439.40/- but he defaulted in payment and despite notice neither he paid the rent nor vacated the premises. The suit was decreed by the trial Judge with the finding that the notice is valid and the petitioner had failed to deposit the arrears of rent according to law. The consequent revision has also been dismissed. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that in an earlier Small Causes Suit No. 53 of 1992 between the parties the petitioner had already deposited the rent under Section 30 and thus, the notice demanding rent again for the period covered by the earlier suit rendered the notice invalid. 5. Both the courts below have considered the submission in detail and after relying upon decisions of this Court have come to the conclusion that even though an exaggerated demand is made in the notice that by itself would not render it invalid. The courts below have found that in the earlier suit the rent was deposited only uptil 31.3.1997 and therefore, the demand for period subsequent to that was justified and the notice was valid. In the opinion of the Court, the decision of the courts below on this issue cannot be faulted. 6. It is then urged that the petitioner had deposited the entire arrears of rent together with costs etc. and therefore, was entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After detailed consideration of the facts on record, the court below came to the conclusion that according to law the petitioner had to deposit a total sum of Rs. 51,841.44 but he had deposited only a sum of Rs. 37,120/- leaving a short fall of Rs. 14,721.44 and relying upon the decisions of this Court it has found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 51,841.44 but he had deposited only a sum of Rs. 37,120/- leaving a short fall of Rs. 14,721.44 and relying upon the decisions of this Court it has found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. This finding based on fact has not been shown to be erroneous in any manner.? 7. No other point has been urged. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.