JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the landlords suit for his ejectment. It raises a question of law of some general importance namely whether a tenant can be held to be in arrears of rent as contemplated under Sec. 3(i) (a) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act if he has deposited the rent in court under the orders of the High Court. The facts very briefly are these. The appellant Laxmi Narain is the tenant of a shop in Kanpur of which the plaintiff-respondent, Sita Ram, is the owner and landlord. The agreed rent is Rs. 8/12/- p.m. Prior to this suit there was a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The former served on the latter a notice of demand under Sec. 3(1) (a) of the Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 325.90 nP as rent from 1st of March 1956 to 30th May 1958. The appellant admitted that the rent was due but claimed that he was entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 192/- which he had paid as Municipal taxes which the landlord was bound to pay. He remitted the balance due after deducting this amount. The respondent filed a suit for his ejectment, a decree for ejectment which however was set aside by this court in second appeal on the ground that the tenant was entitled to deduct the amount paid by him as Municipal taxes. The appellant was also awarded costs in all courts. The appeal was allowed by this court on 16th March 1961. But during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court and the second appeal before this court the appellant obtained a stay of ejectment on condition that he deposited in the trial court every month the rent due. It is common ground that during the pendency of the second appeal the appellant deposited the rent for each month in the trial court. 2. After the decision of the second appeal (No. 1805 of 1959) the landlord again served a notice on the appellant demanding arrears of rent. The demand was for Rs. 376.75 nP. as rent from 1st March 1956 till 31st May 1961. The landlord gave the appellant a credit for Rs. 2. After the decision of the second appeal (No. 1805 of 1959) the landlord again served a notice on the appellant demanding arrears of rent. The demand was for Rs. 376.75 nP. as rent from 1st March 1956 till 31st May 1961. The landlord gave the appellant a credit for Rs. 192/- paid by him as Municipal taxes but none for the amounts deposited by him in the trial court. This notice was served on the tenant in the first week of June 1961. In reply the tenant pointed out that he had deposited the entire rent in court under the orders of the court and that the landlord was free to withdraw this amount. He added that if the landlord needed any assistance from the appellant, he was willing to render it. But the respondent landlord made no application for the withdrawal of this amount, and on 7th of Aug. 1961 he served a second notice on the appellant in which he contended that he was not bound to withdraw the amount deposited in court nor was it possible for him to withdraw it. The notice gave the appellant a "last opportunity to pay of the entire arrears of rent. On 31st August 1961 the tenant replied to the second notice in which he repeated that the rent of July 1961 had been deposited in court and he also claimed the right to deduct the costs awarded under the decree of this court. He again repeated his offer of help for withdrawal of the money from trial court by the landlord. Apparently the landlord rejected this offer for he filed the persent suit for ejectment on 22nd December 1961. It is not necessary to consider any issue between the parties except the one which was pressed in this appeal. The appellant contended in defence that he had committed no default in payment of rent as he had regularly deposited the rent for each month in court under the orders of the High Court. This plea was rejected by both the courts below on the ground that it was the duty of the appellant as tenant to tender the rent to the landlord and that the latter was not bound to withdraw the money deposited in court. The tenant has come here in second appeal. 3. Mr. This plea was rejected by both the courts below on the ground that it was the duty of the appellant as tenant to tender the rent to the landlord and that the latter was not bound to withdraw the money deposited in court. The tenant has come here in second appeal. 3. Mr. J. N. Tiwari who argued this appeal with ability contended that the view of the trial court that the appellant committed default in payment of rent is erroneous. Learned counsel argued that in the circumstances of this case the courts should not have held that the appellant was not in arrears of rent when the landlord served his notice of demand on him. I have heard learned counsel for both sides at considerable length and am of the opinion that Mr. Tiwari's argument is sound. 4. The courts below rightly observed that a tenant is bound to tender the rent to the landlord who is under no obligation to collect a deposit of rent made else where by the former. But they overlooked the fact that the appellant had made the deposit under the orders of this court and the respondent was entitled to withdraw this amount and the appellant could not have withdrawn it without the consent and the co-operation of the respondent. If the appellant had paid the rent direct to the landlord, there was a risk of the landlord pocketing it and withdrawing the deposit standing to his credit in the court as well. Therefore, when the appellant wrote to him that he had deposited the rent in court and offered his co-operation to enable the landlord to withdraw the amount, he wanted that the appellant should take the trouble of going to the court, take out the money, and deliver it to him, he should have written back that he was prepared to sign any application for the withdrawal of the amount from the court. Instead of doing this, he rushed to the court and filed a suit for ejectment. I think that in these circumstances the landlord is precluded by his own conduct from claiming that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months, or failed to pay it on demand. 5. Instead of doing this, he rushed to the court and filed a suit for ejectment. I think that in these circumstances the landlord is precluded by his own conduct from claiming that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months, or failed to pay it on demand. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this court in Lala Raj Narain v. M/s Sita Ram, 1952 ALJ 3, but it appears to be against him. It was held in that case that where a landlord gives a notice of ejectment to his tenant claiming a certain sum as arrears of rent, and the tenant informs him that the rent had been deposited in court and the landlord can withdraw that amount, but the landlord without entering into any further correspondence brings a suit for ejectment, the tenant cannot be said to have made a wilful default. At the time when this case was decided the relevant words of Cl. 3(1) (a) were "wilful default," but in my opinion the principle established should apply to the amended clause as it stands to day. 6. Today the relevant words of this clause are; "the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of service upon him of a notice of demand." These words are intended to safeguard the landlords right to be paid rent regularly, but in peculiar and unusual situations like the present one the safeguard should be applied according to equity, justice, and good conscience. I think a tenant cannot be said to have failed to pay the arrears of rent if he is wrongly dragged into court by the landlord, and after a decree of ejectment has been erroneously passed against him and he has appealed form it, he regularly deposits the amount of rent every month under the orders of this court, and after winning the appeal he offers his help to the landlord in withdrawing it from the court. After a decree for ejectment has been passed against him and he has appealed from it, a tenant is not entitled to tender any rent direct to the landlord who will refuse to treat him as a tenant in view of the decree; and he can pay rent only under the authority of the court and the only way in which he can pay it is by depositing the amount each month in court. If subsequently the tenant, on a demand of rent from the landlord points out that he has already deposited the rent in court and offers his help in withdrawing it, but the landlord rejects this offer and files a suit for ejectment, the court will not hold that the tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent in spite of a notice of demand. In such a situation, if the landlord insists on payment being made to him personally in spite of the deposit, he should offer his help to the tenant in withdrawing the deposit. Under General Rule (Civil) it would be difficult for the tenant to withdraw the amount deposited by him without the consent of the landlord for whose benefit the deposit was made under the orders of the court. See Chapter XI, Rules 2/3 and 295. 7. I allow this appeal with costs and dismiss the plaintiff-respondents suit for ejectment with costs in all courts. The decree for recovery of Rs. 325.90 nP. as arrears of rent will stand, but the one for Rs. 30/- as mesne profits from 8-9-61 till the date of the suit and further mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of actual delivery of possession is dismissed with costs. 8. The plaintiff respondent will be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant in the trial court and adjust it towards the satisfaction of the decree for rent, but if he fails to withdraw this amount within six months and prefers to execute the decree for rent, the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw this amount and then satisfy the decree for as he likes. Appeal allowed.