JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The findings recorded by the Courts below in Eviction Suit namely S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2012 (Bhola Ram Kushwaha v. Shankar Lal Makdariya) are under challenge. 3. The eviction suit was filed by one Shankar Lal Makdariya with regard to a residential accommodation namely House No.62, Mohalla Chaturyana, District Jhansi. On the dispute raised by the parties, issues were framed with regard to the landlord-tenant relationship, service of notice, default in payment of rent and lastly as to whether the defendant was entitled for benefit under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. Issue Nos.1 & 2 were with regard to the landlord-tenant relationship and rate of rent of the suit property. The findings recorded by S.C.C Court on these two issues were not challenged in revision and became final. 5. However, on the issue of default it was found that the petitioner did not tender rent to the landlord namely Shankar Lal Makdariya. The suit property was devolved upon Sri Shankar Lal Mukdariya by way of a Will executed by his father and he is the sole landlord of the suit property. The deposits made under Section 30 of the Act are in the name of Krishna Gopal Makdariya who has no concern with the suit property. Sri Krishna Gopal Makdariya had filed objection under Section 30 proceedings and denied that he was landlord of the suit property, 6. So far as the deposits are concerned, it was found that the petitioner had not deposited the dues of rent, the cost of suit etc. before first date of hearing in this suit. The deposits of Rs.250/- till the date of first hearing were not sufficient to grant him benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 7. This apart the tenant had acquired a residential accommodation during the pendency of the eviction suit and, therefore, in view of proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 20, he was not entitled to benefit thereof. These findings were affirmed by the Revisional Court on the reasoning given by it. 8. 7. This apart the tenant had acquired a residential accommodation during the pendency of the eviction suit and, therefore, in view of proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 20, he was not entitled to benefit thereof. These findings were affirmed by the Revisional Court on the reasoning given by it. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below had erred in ignoring the deposits made by him under Section 30 of the Act wherein the rent was deposited till 31.10.2010. 9. Admittedly, the deposits were made on 23.3.2010 in Section 30 proceedings whereas the eviction suit was filed in the year 2009. After the eviction suit was filed and notices were served upon the defendant, he was required to deposit the dues of rent, cost of suit etc. in the present suit. The deposits, if any, under Section 30 of the Act would not be valid deposit so as to grant him benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 10. This apart the said deposits have not been made in the name of the plaintiff/landlord namely Shankar Lal Makdariya. Sri Krishna Gopal Makdariya, brother of the plaintiff/landlord was impeded as landlord though he had objected on 17.4.2008 that he was not the landlord of the suit property. Even thereafter the tenant continued to deposit rent at his own risk. No benefit can be derived from the said deposits as there are not valid deposits. 11. This apart, in view of the finding recorded by the Court below that the tenant had acquired residential accommodation in the name of his wife, the petitioner/tenant is not entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act in view of the proviso contained therein. 12. On all these counts there is no justification to interfere in the eviction decree passed by the J.S.C.C. as affirmed by the Revisional Court. 13. No good ground is made out for interference. 14. Dismissed as such. Petition dismissed.