Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Order dated 13.11.2013 passed in this writ petition (on the order sheet) is quoted below: "Heard Sri Kaushik Chaterji, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri N.N. Jaiswal, learned counsel who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of two of the legal representatives of original respondent No.3 on restoration applications and merit of the writ petition Application for substitution of legal representations of respondent No.3 has already been allowed. All the restoration applications are allowed after condoning the delay in filing the same. Order dated 23.04.2013 dismissing the restoration application in default and order dated 07.02.2006 dismissing the writ petition in default are set aside. Writ Petition is restored. Judgment reserved. On inquiry from court, learned counsel for tenants respondents has stated that in case matter is decided in his favour, he agrees for reasonable enhancement of rent with effect from the date of judgment of this court. " 2. This is landlords' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by them against tenant original respondent No.3 since deceased and survived by legal representatives. Out of the four petitioners three (petitioners No.1 to 3) are sons of Sajan Kumar. At the time of filing of the writ petition, petitioners No.2 & 3 were minor under the guardianship by their father Sajan Kumar. Previously the owner landlady of the house in dispute was Smt. Santan Devi. She sold the house in dispute to the four petitioners through four different sale deeds of 1980. Rate of rent is Rs.125/- per month. Before filing the suit notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent was given by the petitioners to the tenant on 10/14 August 1982. Thereafter, the suit for eviction (S.C.C. Suit No.29 of 1982, Dharmpal and others Vs. Chetumal) was instituted. 3. J.S.C.C. Lakhimpur Kheri decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of default on 04.04.1987. Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant in the suit. Against the said decree, tenant respondent No.3, Chetumal filed S.C.C. Revision No.98 of 1987. First A.D.J., Lakhimpur allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 06.07.1987, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for eviction but affirmed the same for recovery of arrears of rent. The said judgment of the lower revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition. 4. First A.D.J., Lakhimpur allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 06.07.1987, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for eviction but affirmed the same for recovery of arrears of rent. The said judgment of the lower revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition. 4. The tenant had pleaded that he was not shown the sale deeds even though he demanded the same from petitioners hence he was in doubt about the ownership landlord-ship of the plaintiffs and for this reason he deposited the rent under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 5. The trial court had held that rent was not offered to the plaintiffs hence its deposit under Section 30 was not valid. 6. The tenant had admitted that when he went to pay rent to the previous landlady, she told him that rent must be paid to Sajan Kumar and thereupon he requested Sri Sajan Kuamr to show the sale deed. The lower revisional court held that sale deeds were not executed in favour of Sajan Kumar but in favour of his sons and another lady who might be his relation, hence if tenant had paid rent to Sajan Kumar, it would not have been valid payment and afterward the purchasers could say that rent was not paid to them. From this the lower revisional court concluded that deposit under Section 30(2) of the Act was quite valid. I fully agree with this finding of lower revisional court. Section 30(2) of the Act is quoted below: "(2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may, until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent Court or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building." 7. In this regard reference may be made to Ram Rati Vs. Shri Niwas, AIR 1995 SC 2321 wherein it was held that if authentic information of transfer is not given to tenant, he is not expected to pay rent to new landlord. Section 30(2) uses the word 'doubt'. In this regard reference may be made to Ram Rati Vs. Shri Niwas, AIR 1995 SC 2321 wherein it was held that if authentic information of transfer is not given to tenant, he is not expected to pay rent to new landlord. Section 30(2) uses the word 'doubt'. As petitioners did not show the sale deeds hence non payment of rent by the tenant cannot be said to be default in payment and deposit of rent by him under Section 30(2) was perfectly legal. The lower revisional court rightly held that the J.S.C.C. had applied the principles of Section 30(1) to Section 30(2). Under sub-Section (1) deposit can be made only when it is proved that landlord refused to accept the rent. However, under sub-Section (2) deposit is valid if tenant is in doubt about the landlordship. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 9. Rent of the house in dispute is enhanced to Rs.1500/- per month payable from January, 2014. ___________________