JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a landlord's second appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge Kanpur dismissing his suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The plaintiff appellant Chhedi Lal Gupta is the owner and landlord of a house in Mohalla Buxipur, Gorakhpur city, and the respondent Anukul Chand is his tenant. The agreed rent is Rs. 15/- p.m. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the defendant had committed various acts of nuisance and had failed to pay arrears of rent in spite of service of a notice of demand under Sec. 3(1) (a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The defendant denied both the allegations. The trial court eld that the defendant had committed no default in the payment of rent as he had been depositing it in the court under Sec. 7-C of the Act. But it found that he had committed various acts for nuisance which entitled the plaintiff to eject him. On appeal the learned Civil Judge disagreed with the trial court on the question of nuisance and held that the plaintiffs allegations of nuisance against the defendant were false. He also agreed with the view of the trial court that the defendant had not committed any default in payment of rent. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff who has come here in second appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant Mr. Rajeshwar Varma argued that the finding of the lower appellate court that the defendant had not been guilty of nuisance is perverse and vitiated by several errors of law. He contended that the learned Judge had taken many irrelevant facts into consideration. There is no doubt that the judgment of the learned Judge is unsatisfactory, but am not prepared to hold that it is illegal. Moreover after going through the evidence, I am inclined to agree with the conclusions of the Civil Judge that no nuisance was committed lay the defendant. He is an old man of 70 years whereas the plaintiff appellant is about 36 years of age. It is not likely that a tenant at that age will dare defy young landlord living in the same premises. Mr. Varma then argued that the view of the courts below that the defendant had committed no default in payment of rent is erroneous. It is not likely that a tenant at that age will dare defy young landlord living in the same premises. Mr. Varma then argued that the view of the courts below that the defendant had committed no default in payment of rent is erroneous. He pointed out that both the courts below have taken this view on the ground that the tenant had deposited the rent in court under Sec. 7-C of the Act, but both of them overlooked that a tenant is not entitled to make a deposit under this Section unless the landlord refuses to accept the rent or there is a bona fide doubt as to who is entitled to receive it. Learned counsel contended that in the present case neither of these two conditions existed and the tenant had deposited the rent in court without any justification whatsoever. 3. After hearing learned counsel for both sides I am of the view that this argument must prevail. Counsel for the respondent was unable to give any explanation why his client had deposited the rent under Sec. 7-C. Under the law the tenant must tender the rent to the landlord personally and the night to make a deposit under Sec. 7-C arises only if the latter refuses to accept it or the tenant is under a bona fide doubt as to who can accept it. In this case there was no refusal by the landlord nor was there any doubt in the mind of the tenant. The deposit under Sec. 7-C was invalid and should have been ignored by the courts below. If it is the respondent who was clearly in arrears of rent, failed to pay in spite of service of a notice of demand. Therefore the appellant is entitled to a decree for ejectment. 4. I allow this appeal with costs and set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and decree the plaintiff respondents suit for ejectment with costs. Appeal allowed.