JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. In the proceedings under Section 20(4) of the Act for eviction of the tenant, both the courts below have recorded that the deposits made by the tenant on 13.2.2007 under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not valid deposits and could not be deducted from the dues which were required to be deposited so as to grant him benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 3. Admitted facts of the matter are that the petitioner is tenant of the suit property which was initially owned by Smt. Madhubala, mother of the plaintiff Prem Kumar Gupta. Smt. Madhubala died on 15.5.2004. After death of Smt. Madhubala, the rent for the month of April and May 2004 was tendered to Sri Prem Kumar Gupta and rent receipt dated 5.6.2004 was issued by Sri Prem Kumar Gupta. The notice demanding rent and determining the tenancy on the ground of default was issued by the landlord on 5.1.2007 which was admittedly served upon the tenant prior to 19.1.2007 reply to which was given by the tenant on 19.1.2007. After the notice was served upon the tenant, he filed an application under Section 30(2) of the Act which was registered as Misc. Case No. 17 of 2007. 4. In the said proceeding he had deposited rent from June, 2004 to February, 2007 for a total amount of Rs. 6,600/-. The present suit was filed on 1.3.2011 and the deposits from March, 2007 were made in the present suit. While making deposits in the present suit, an amount of Rs. 6,600/- till February, 2007, which was deposited by the tenant in the proceeding under Section 30(2) of the Act, was deducted. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deposits under Section 30(2) of the Act were valid deposits and were wrongly rejected by the Court below in arriving at the finding on issue of grant of benefit under section 20(4) of the Act. The courts below had illegally recorded that the deposits of an amount of Rs. 6,600/- made on 13.2.2007 under Section 30(2) of the Act are not valid deposits and, therefore, could not have been deducted so as to provide benefit of Section 20(4) of he Act to the petitioner. 6. The courts below had illegally recorded that the deposits of an amount of Rs. 6,600/- made on 13.2.2007 under Section 30(2) of the Act are not valid deposits and, therefore, could not have been deducted so as to provide benefit of Section 20(4) of he Act to the petitioner. 6. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was bona fide dispute regarding ownership of the suit property and as such he had no option but to deposit under Section 30(2) of the Act. 7. To test this submission, the notice dated 5.1.2007 and the reply given by the tenant dated 19.1.2007 appended as Annexures 3' & 4' to the supplementary affidavit have been perused. 8. A perusal of the notice dated 5.1.2007 indicates that the plaintiff Sri Prem Kumar Gupta categorically stated therein that the tenant was required to pay him Rs. 6450/- towards rent till 31.12.2006 and the cost of the notice to the tune of Rs. 250/- within one month from the date of receipt of the notice and further to hand over the vacant possession of the building on the expiry of 30 days period from the date of receipt of the notice. 9. In reply to the said notice, the tenant sated that he had no objection to tender the rent to Sri Prem Kumar Gupta provided he issue rent receipts and establish his exclusive ownership to the suit property. 10. In any case, this suit property was devolved upon Sri Prem Kumar Gupta through his mother and as such he was co-landlord of the suit property. There was no reason to ask him to establish his exclusive ownership to the suit property so as to make him entitle to receive rent from the tenant. 11. This apart, it is also reflected from the reply dated 19.1.2007 that the copy of it was sent to three brothers of Sri Prem Kumar Gupta namely Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Sri Deen Dayal Gupta by the tenant asking them to inform whether there was a dispute regarding ownership to the suit property. 12. There is no averment in the written statement filed by the tenant in SCC Suit No. 13 of 2011 that any of the brother of the plaintiff/landlord had objected to the right of the plaintiff to receive rent after 19.1.2007. 12. There is no averment in the written statement filed by the tenant in SCC Suit No. 13 of 2011 that any of the brother of the plaintiff/landlord had objected to the right of the plaintiff to receive rent after 19.1.2007. It has not been stated by the tenant in the written statement that after 19.1.2007 he had ever tendered rent to the plaintiff/landlord and the landlord had refused to receive the rent. 13. In view thereof, the pre-conditions for deposits under Section 30(1) & (2) did not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. There was no dispute much less bona fide dispute with regard to the ownership or to receive the rent by the plaintiff/landlord in the present suit. The deposits under Section 30(2) of the Act, therefore, have rightly been held to be invalid deposits by the Court. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that both the Courts are justified in concluding that the defendant/tenant could not have deducted Rs. 6,600/-, alleged deposits under Section 30(2) of the Act while making deposits of dues of rent in the present suit. 15. As there was a short fall, therefore, benefit of Section 20(4) was rightly denied to the petitioner. 16. No other ground has been pressed. Dismissed.