JUDGMENT Roy, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of the Munsif directing the ejectment of the applicant u/s 7-B (5) of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act No. III of 1947, on the ground that the amount of Rent claimed in regard to the premises or accommodation had not been deposited by the tenant in response to the notice issued to him. 2. The facts, which are not disputed, may be briefly stated. On 28-4-1948 a house known as the Heals Villa in Almora was allotted to the applicant on a rent of Rs. 600/- a year. He continued to remain in possession thereof till 31-1-1955. On 1-2-1955, the previous allotment order was cancelled and a fresh allotment was made in his favour in respect of a portion of the earlier accommodation, and the rent fixed under this fresh allotment was a sum of Rs. 280/- a year. From that date, namely, from 1-2-1955 there was, in effect, a fresh engagement in regard to this accommodation and from that date the tenant came into possession of this new accommodation under that fresh allotment. On 3-10-1955, the landlord made an application u/s 7-B of the Act. In this application he contended that rent of the building from 1-4-1954 to 31-3-1955 was Rs. 600/- , that out of it Rs. 200/- were paid and that the balance of Rs. 400/- were due. Notice having been issued to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of S. 7-B of the Act the tenant without depositing the amount contended that the rent was due and the application was not maintainable. The learned Munsif, by his order dated 2-2-1956, which is the subject of revision before us, held that as the deposit had not been made nor had security been furnished, the objection filed by the tenant was not worthy of consideration. On that basis the learned Munsif directed that the tenant be ejected from the accommodation in question. 3. It has been urged before us that the view taken by the Munsif was wrong. 4. On that basis the learned Munsif directed that the tenant be ejected from the accommodation in question. 3. It has been urged before us that the view taken by the Munsif was wrong. 4. S. 7-B of the Act, as far as it is relevant for our purpose, may be quoted below: 7-B (1) When any tenant, who is in occupation of an accommodation in pursuance of an order made under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of S. 7, is in arrears of rent or any instalment thereof where it is payable in instalments for more than three months, the landlord may make an application to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction for an order of ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation. The proviso to S. 7B is as follows: Provided that the tenant shall not be permitted to file any objection, unless he has deposited in court the amount mentioned in the notice or furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. Upon a plain reading of Sub-clause (1) of S. 7B it appears to us to be clear that the arrears referred to in that sub-clause is referable only to the particular accommodation from which an eviction is claimed and not to any other accommodation. Where, therefore, the application u/s 7B refers to an allotment of a particular accommodation having been made on 1-2-1955, and the application further states that rent upto 31-3-1955 is in arrears, the very foundation for the entertainability of an application u/s 7B is wanting because the rent is not in arrears for more than 3 months and the court will be exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, if it directs notice to issue upon those allegations; and, at any rate it would be acting in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity if it were to overlook the allegations of the application and to pass an order of ejectment from that particular accommodation u/s 7B (5) of the Act. 6. Our attention has been drawn to two decisions of this Court, the one in Dayal Das Vs. 6. Our attention has been drawn to two decisions of this Court, the one in Dayal Das Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi, AIR 1953 All 755 and the other in Ram Lal v. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. 1952 154 AWR 136 in support of the proposition that the purpose of the proviso to S. 7B of the Act seems to be to provide a safe guard against frivolous objections and dilatory considerations and that the payment of the amount mentioned in notice in court, is a condition precedent to the determination of any objection by the tenant, whether that objection relates to the maintainability of the application of the land lord or to the correctness of the amount claimed by him. Those decisions were founded upon their own peculiar facts and they cannot be taken as laying down a universal Law applicable also to a case where the facts are different, as in the present case. As we have already said if the very foundation of the jurisdiction were wanting as in this case, namely, where in the application it was stated that this particular accommodation was obtained under an allotment order of 1-2-1955 and where it was further stated in the application that rent was in arrears upto 31-3-1955, the application itself indicated that three Months rent in regard to this accommodation had not been in arrears on the date when the application was made, and consequently the Munsif had had no jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 7B. 7. In this view of the matter the decision of the court below was incorrect and it must be vacated. We, therefore, allow the application in revision, set aside the order of the court below and dismiss the application u/s 7B of the Act with costs to the applicant in both the courts.