https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275743 A rent deposit made under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act had to be treated as payment to the landlord for compliance with Section 20(4), because Section 30(6) deems such deposit to be payment on the date of deposit. Reading the provisions harmoniously, the statutory protection against eviction for default could not be defeated merely because Section 20(4) expressly referred to deposits under Section 30(1). Excluding the Section 30(2) deposit would nullify the scheme and impose an unjustified double payment burden on the tenant. The eviction order for default was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:19:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275743 A rent deposit made under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act had to be treated as payment to the landlord for compliance with Section 20(4), because Section 30(6) deems such deposit to be payment on the date of deposit. Reading the provisions harmoniously, the statutory protection against eviction for default could not be defeated merely because Section 20(4) expressly referred to deposits under Section 30(1). Excluding the Section 30(2) deposit would nullify the scheme and impose an unjustified double payment burden on the tenant. The eviction order for default was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275743