JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Swapnil Kumar, has appeared for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute and he has lost in the suit for arrears of rent and eviction instituted by the respondent landlord in the two courts below. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that the courts below have not considered the deposits made by petitioner under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a technical ground that the deposits so made were not properly accompanied by Form E and F. 4. Notwithstanding the above argument, even if the above deposits are treated to be valid, the petitioner is not entitle to get any benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act so as to avoid his eviction as the deposits made under Section 30 of the Act were withdrawn by him. 5. No other point has been argued and raised before me. 6. In the end Sri Srivastava prays for some time to vacate the shop in dispute to which Sri Swapnil Kumar has no objection provided only a reasonable time is granted and the petitioner is directed to deposit the entire amount as decreed. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner is allowed three months time from today to vacate the shop in dispute provided he gives an undertaking on affidavit within two weeks from today before the Small Cause Court that he will vacate and handover peaceful possession of the same within the aforesaid time and at the same time deposits the entire amount as decreed by the courts below within a period of one month from today and deposits the amount for use and occupation during the pendency of the revision as directed by this court vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 @ Rs.1000/- per month till the date of delivery of possession. 8. In view of above, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.