Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The only question up for consideration is if a tenant while complying with the requirement of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") disputed the rate of rent, can it be treated to be an unconditional deposit or not. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, appearing for petitioner placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Manga Sen Vs. Sri Kanchhid Mai 1981 ARC 632 (SC) and a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam Patwa Vs. Xth Addl. District Judge 1993 (2) ARC 485 (para 7). 3. Per contra, Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal Vs. Mahendra Pratap Garg 1985 (2) ARC 298 wherein the Apex Court's decision in Mangal Sen (supra) has been considered and distinguished and it has been clearly held that mere fact that tenant did not admit the rate of rent claimed by landlord and has disclosed another figure as rate of rent, does not mean that the deposit was made conditionally. 4. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, appearing for petitioner, when confronted with the authority of Apex Court in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal (supra) could not dispute that the issue raised by him is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of Apex Court, against him. 5. In view of above and the exposition of law laid down by Apex Court in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal (supra), I find no merit in writ petition. 6. Dismissed. _____________