Rajiv Sharma, J.— Heard Mr. Rajeev Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Bhushan, lerned Standing Counsel and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2. As the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous in nature, issuance of notice to the opposite party no.3 is dispensed with. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a Regular Suit No.159 of 2009 before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) South for restraining the respondent No.3 from evicting the petitioner and also filed a Civil Misc. Case No.88 of 2009 under the provisions of Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for depositing the rent, as the landlord refused to receive the rent. The said application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to deposit the rent in the Court vide order dated 14.7.2009. Subsequently, the landlord and tenant both have entered into a compromise at Police Station, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow on 3.2.2010. After settlement, the petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of Misc. Case No.88 of 2009 and also Regular Suit No.159 of 2009 as the dispute was resolved between the parties. Thereafter, the said applications were allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application dated 29.11.2010 in the Court of opposite party No.2 and requested that in terms of agreement, the entire rent is handed over to the opposite party No.3 on 3.2.2010 and he also returned the caution deposit. Therefore, he prays for a direction to the opposite party No.2 for refunding the amount of Rs.14,400/-. The said application was rejected by means of order dated 2.9.2011. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the rent has been paid outside the Court, which has been duly accepted and acknowledged by the landlord, then the rent, which has been deposited, in the Court, shall be refunded, as provided under Section 30 (5) of the Act. A perusal of the order, it reflects that while passing the impugned order dated 2.9.2011, provisions of Section 30 (5) of the Act have not been considered. Therefore, the matter is liable to be remanded for deciding the matter afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.9.2011 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the opposite party No.2, for deciding the matter, afresh, in light of the aforesaid observations. _