JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This civil revision is directed against an order for ejectment passed by the learned Munsif (South), Lucknow, u/s 7B of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, thereafter referred to as the Acts. 2. Sri Babu Lal, opposite party, served upon Sridhar Shukla, applicant, a notice u/s 7B of the Act claiming a certain sum as arrears of rent The notice was served upon Sridhar Shukla on 26-8-58, but he did not file an objection as contemplated by Section 7B of the Act. He filed his objection as late as 30-1-60. The same day the learned Munsif passed an order for his ejectment on the ground that, his objection was filed beyond time. This application u/s 115, CPC by Sridhar Shukla is directed against the Court's order dated 30-1-60. 3. In his objection dated 30-1-60, Sridhar Shukla denied Babu Lal's title. The objector denied that Sri Babu Lal was the owner of the house in dispute. In paragraph 10 of the objection it was stated that, one Smt. Sukhdei is the present owner of the house in suit. In para 13 of the objection it was contended that, Sri Babu Lal is not the landlord of Sridhar Shukla, and consequently has no right to file the application u/s 7B of the Act. The learned Munsif did not record any finding on the question whether Sri Babu Lal is the landlord or not. The Court observed that the objection could not he entertained, in view of the delay in filing it. 4. Admittedly, the objection dated 30-1-60, was filed a good deal beyond fifteen days mentioned in Section 7B of the Act. The question arises whether under such circumstances the Court should have entered into the controversy whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties or not. In order to decide this question, the scheme of Section 7B of the Act will have to be examined. 5. S. 7B contains fourteen sub Sections with a proviso in sub S. (7). Sub S. (1)of Section 7B provides for an application by the landlord to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction. Sub S (3) states. On the making of the application under sub S.(1) the Munsif shall ... serve ... 5. S. 7B contains fourteen sub Sections with a proviso in sub S. (7). Sub S. (1)of Section 7B provides for an application by the landlord to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction. Sub S (3) states. On the making of the application under sub S.(1) the Munsif shall ... serve ... a notice on the tenant asking him to pay the amount of arrears within 15 days of the service thereof, or to show cause...". Sub S. (5) runs thus: Where the tenant has been duly served with the notice under sub S. (3) but has failed to deposit the amount mentioned within the time allowed therein, and he does not file any objection, the Munsif shall... make an order directing that the tenant be evicted...". The proviso to sub S. (7) runs thus: 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). 6. The Learned Counsel for Sri Babu Lal relies upon Ram Lal Chadda v. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., Lucknow 1952 AWR (HC) 136. In that case it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that, in an application u/s 7B of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, what has to be deposited in Court by the tenant is the amount mentioned in the notice as due according to the landlord applicant irrespective of the question whether the said amount is actually due or not, and the payment of the said amount 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 landlord or to the correctness of the amount claimed by him. In that case there was a dispute about the amount payable as arrears of rent. It appears that there was no dispute as regards relationship as landlord and tenant. In the present case, the occupier of the premises has raised the plea that the person issuing notice to the occupier is not landlord at all. So the nature of the objection in the present case is different from the nature of the objection in Chadd's case. 7. In the present case, the occupier of the premises has raised the plea that the person issuing notice to the occupier is not landlord at all. So the nature of the objection in the present case is different from the nature of the objection in Chadd's case. 7. The Learned Counsel for Babu Lal points out that, under the proviso to sub S. (7) of Section 7B, the objector has to deposit the amount claimed or furnish security. Admittedly, Sridhar Shukla did not furnish security. Nor did he deposit the cash claimed. It was therefore, urged that his objection could not be entertained by the Court. 8. The learned Munsif appears to have passed the impugned order under sub S. (5) of Section 7B. The objector did not deposit the amount mentioned in the notice. Nor was the objection accompanied by security. The Court, therefore, proceeded to pass an order for eviction of the objector. It is, however, to be noted that, the word 'tenant' appears in sub S. (3), in sub S. (5) and in the proviso to sub S. (7). The two Sub-sections and the proviso will apply where a tenant files an objection on certain grounds. These provisions will not apply in a case where the objector takes up the stand that he is not a tenant at all. Section 73 of the Act provides a summary method for ejectment of tenants. If relationship of landlord and tenant exists, and rent falls in arrear, the summary procedure may be adopted. But this summary procedure is not suit able in cases, which involve complicated questions of title to immovable property. In any case, before the Court passes an order of ejectment under the summary procedure, the Court ought to be satisfied that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. In the present case the learned Munsif did not record any finding as to whether Sridhar Shukla is Babu Lal's tenant or not. The Court proceeded to pass an order of ejectment on the short ground that the objection was filed beyond fifteen days. It is true that the objection was not filed within fifteen days as contemplated by Section 7B. But the objection was of unusual nature. It was distinctly pleaded in the objection that the notice given was not objector's landlord at oil. It is true that the objection was not filed within fifteen days as contemplated by Section 7B. But the objection was of unusual nature. It was distinctly pleaded in the objection that the notice given was not objector's landlord at oil. If there is any substance in the contention raised by the objector, obviously no action could be taken u/s 7B of the Act. Although there was great delay in filing the objection, the Court ought to have satisfied itself that relationship of landlord and tenants exists between the parties. The Court, however, declined to make any such enquiry. In spite of the delay in filing the objection, the Court ought to have made an enquiry into the question whether Sridhar Shukla is Babu Lal's tenant or not. The Court could not proceed to pass an order of ejectment without such an enquiry. The special rule of limitation contained in sub S. (3) of Section 7B should be confined to those cases, where the Court is satisfied that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. In view of the objection raised by Sridhar Shukla in the instant case there is some doubt as to the relationship between the parties. So the Court ought to have made an enquiry into the matter. 9. It was urged for Sri Babu Lal that this Court cannot interfere u/s 115, CPC. I have explained above that, the Court should not have passed an order of ejectment without an enquiry into the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties Since the trial Court declined to decide a material point which arose in the case, the impugned order is vitiated by a material irregularity in procedure. It is, therefore, imperative that this Court should interfere in the exercise of its powers of revision. Since Sridhar Shukla is himself to blame in so far as the delay in filing the objection is concerned, parties may be directed to bear their own costs before this Court. 10. The civil revision is allowed. The learned Munsif's order, dated 30-1-60 is set aside. He is directed to hold an enquiry into the question whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, and decide the case in accordance with law. 10. The civil revision is allowed. The learned Munsif's order, dated 30-1-60 is set aside. He is directed to hold an enquiry into the question whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, and decide the case in accordance with law. If the Court finds that the objector is a tenant of the notice giver, the Court should treat the objection as time barred. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court.