Sudhir Agarwal, J. This writ petition has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Allahabad allowing the S.C.C. Revision No. 12 of 1998 and setting aside the Trial Court's judgment dated 28.8.1998 whereby the S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1992 instituted by respondent no. 1 was dismissed. 2. S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1991 under Section 20 (2) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was instituted by respondent no. 1 seeking ejectment of petitioner, who was tenant in the accommodation in question, on the ground that he was in default of payment of rent from 1.8.1991 to December 1999 and despite notice has not paid the same, therefore, is liable to be ejected. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 28.8.1998 finding that since April 1991, the plaintiff-landlord refused to accept rent and, therefore, tenant started deposit of rent in the Court of Munsif, Farrukhabad in S.C.C. No. 14/74/91. It is not in dispute that regularly the rent of Rs. 40/- per month has been deposited in the aforesaid Court which included the rent of Month of August 1991 to December 1999. The Revisional Court, however, has observed that since even after giving notice to the tenant, he continued to deposit rent in the Court without offering the same to landlord, therefore, he is liable for ejectment. 3. The approach of Revisional Court is clearly erroneous. The issue was not with respect to benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972, but it was whether there was any default on the part of petitioner. When petitioner has validly deposited rent in the Court under Section 30 (1) of Act, 1972, the law presumes that such deposit amounts to payment of rent to landlord and that being so, there was no default on the part of petitioner. Hence, SCC Suit itself, for ejectment of petitioner, was not maintainable on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 20 (2) (a) of Act, 1972. The question of benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972 does not arise. 4. It is not in dispute that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the monthly rent of accommodation in question was Rs. The question of benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972 does not arise. 4. It is not in dispute that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the monthly rent of accommodation in question was Rs. 40 and upto December, 1999 it was regularly deposited in the Court under Section 30 (1) of Act, 1972. In view thereof, the judgment of Revisional Court cannot sustain. 5. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of Revisional Court dated 18.11.2005 is hereby set aside and the Trial Court's judgment dated 28.8.1998 is hereby restored and confirmed. _____________