Sudhir Agarwal, J. — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 23rd July, 1996 passed by District Judge, Bareilly allowing the tenant's revision and dismissing petitioner-landlord's S. C. C. Suit No. 91 of 1994 whereby he had sought ejectment of tenant and recovery of arrears of rent. 3. It is evident from record that after receiving notice dated 26th May, 1994 sent by petitioner-landlord to the tenant by registered post the same was replied by the tenant informing the landlord that he has offered rent to the landlord by money-order which was not accepted by the landlord and thereafter entire payment has been made under Section 30(1) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") in the Court of Munsif Havali, Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 46 of 1994. The petitioner-landlord after receiving tenant's reply, filed original suit and in the entire plaint nowhere has said that deposit made by tenant in the Court of Munsif Havali under Section 30(1) was invalid or illegal since the payment of rent was never offered to the petitioner-landlord and he had not refused to receive the same and on the contrary the plaint is totally silent on this aspect of the matter. 4. That being so, there was no occasion for landlord thereafter to raise dispute or doubt over correctness of deposit made by respondent-tenant under Section 30(1) of Act, 1972, therefore, Revisional Court has rightly taken aforesaid deposit to be valid deposit and entitling the tenant benefit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972. 5. I, therefore, find no illegal or patent error otherwise in the impugned order warranting interference. The writ petition lacks merit. 6. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________