Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26495 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9933 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nabi Ahmad Alias Munna Respondent :- Additional District Judge Court No.3 Sitapur And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Abid Ali,Atiya Abid Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Shankar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 23.03.2015 passed in SCC Case No. 19 of 2012 as well as order dated 19.03.2018 whereby revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the tenant in occupation of the premises let out by the respondent. He has served with a notice on 29.06.2012 whereby the tenancy was terminated. It is recorded that the said notice was not received. Subsequently, the suit in question was filed by the landlord. The defence taken by the petitioner was that the rent was sent to the landlord through money-order, which was refused, however thereafter the petitioner had instituted a Misc. Case No. 50 of 2012 under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, however, findings have been recorded that no amount was deposited, subsequently after filing of the suit, an application was moved seeking the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. In the application, it was pleaded that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the rent, the said application was allowed on 22.12.2012, however, rent was deposited on 16.01.2013. The revisional Court has further recorded that in the rent tendered, the water tax was not added, which is required to be deposited in terms of the mandate of Section 7 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. On the basis of the said, the Court recorded that in the absence of deposit of water tax, the deposit made by the petitioner cannot be termed as compliance of Section 20(4). 4. The counsel for the petitioner argues that deposits made by the petitioner were in excess of the deposits which was required and the same should have been accepted/adjusted towards the water tax, which has not been done, which has resulted in great hardship. 5. From the perusal of the two orders, no such averment appears to be raised before the revisional Court or before the SCC Court. In the absence of any such averment, the said averment cannot be seen for the first time in the writ proceedings. As the findings of fact have been recorded and there is no denial that the water tax was not tendered, which is required in terms of Section 7 of the Act. No interference is called for. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 6. As no one appears on behalf of the respondents, let a copy of this order be sent to the JSCC Court for execution, which shall be concluded within a period of four months. 7. The lower Court record is directed to be returned to the concerned lower Court for execution. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench