JUDGMENT G. D. Sahgal, J. - The opposite parties are the landlords of a certain accommodation of which the applicant is the tenant. The opposite parties moved an application under Sec. 7 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act III o 1947), hereinafter to be described as the Act, before the Munsif North Lucknow for an order of ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation. The application was moved in accordance with the form prescribed under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 7-B. Under sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 7-B on the making of the application by the landlord it was the duty of the Munsif without unnecessary delay to serve by registered post or otherwise a notice on the tenant (the applicant before this Court) asking him to pay the amount of arrears within fifteen days of the service thereof or to show cause within the said period why an order directing him to be evicted from the accommodation be not passed against him. In this case tire application was moved on the 7th of February, 1963. The notice, however, seems to have been prepared on the 11th of February, 1963 though it was signed by the Munsif on the 7th of March, 1963. The notice required the tenant to deposit tire sum of Rs. 774/- which was claimed against him by the landlord within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice, but as to the showing of cause he was required to be present during Court hours on the 6th of April, 1963 personally or through an authorised agent and show cause why order for ejectment be not passed against him. The notice was served on the tenant on the 8th of March. 1963. In pursuance of the notice he deposited the amount within fifteen days of the 8th of March, 1963 but as he was required to appear in Court and show cause on the 6th of April, 1963, he appeared on the 6th of April 1963 and though on that date he moved an application for three weeks time to file objections, he did mention in the application that he would like to contest the application as the landlords were not entitled to the amount claimed and there was no agreed rent. Thus in a way though he did show cause against the notice issued to him, on the 6th of April. Thus in a way though he did show cause against the notice issued to him, on the 6th of April. 1963 by indicating the points that he intended to raise, he probably sought an adjournment for filing detailed objections. In any case, as no form is prescribed for the objection under the Act or the Rules it may be taken for the purpose of this case that though the application purported to be one for time to file objections it was in fact an objection against the application of the landlords under Sec. 7-B of the Act. In other words, it may be taken that an objection was filed on the 6th of April, 1963 in terms of the notice issued to the applicant purporting to be under sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 7-B of the Act. 2. Under sub-Sec. (4) if within the time allowed in the notice under sub-Sec. (3) the tenant pays into court the amount mentioned therein the Munsif shall dismiss the application and direct the amount deposited to be paid to the landlord in satisfaction of the arrears and shall make such order as to costs as may appear to him to be just and proper. 3. Under sub-Sec. (7) if the tenant appears in reply to the notice under sub-Sec. (3) and files an objection, other than an objection as to the costs of these proceedings, the Munsif shall inform the applicant that he may, subject to the payment of the court-fee within such time, as may be specified, have the application treated as a plaint in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent alone. This sub-section further provides that the tenant shall not be permitted to file any objection, unless he has deposited in court the amount mentioned in the notice or furnished security to the satisfaction of the Court. After the necessary court-fee has been paid within the time allowed the application wall be treated as a plaint and the proceedings as a suit but in case the court-fee is not deposited the proceeding shall be quashed without prejudice to the right of tire applicant to file, subject to the law of limitation, a separate suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears. 4. 4. In spite of the objection of the tenant the learned Munsif did not require the landlords to deposit the court-fee within the specified time so that their application under Sec. 7-B could be treated as a plaint in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. His reason was that under sub-Sec. (3) the provisions of which were mandatory the objections could be filed within fifteen days of the service of notice on the tenant and as in this case service had been made on the 8th of March, 1963, and the objection was filed on the 6th of April, 1963, beyond the period of fifteen days, the objection could not be entertained and the Court could not extend the period, the application for ejectment under Sec. 7-B stood rejected and a direction was given that the landlords could withdraw the amount deposited on presentation of a proper application. 5. It is against this order of the learned Munsif that this application in revision has been filed on behalf of the tenant. 6. The facts of Civil Revision No. 69 of 1963 also are similar except that while the arrears of rent in the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 58 of 1963 were Rs. 774/- in the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 69 of 1963 the arrears amounted to Rs. 240/-. That is why both these revisions are being heard together. 7. The contention on behalf of tire tenant who is the applicant before this Court is that under sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 7-B of the Act the notice should have required him to pay the amount of arrears within fifteen days of the service or to show cause within the said period why an order directing him to be evicted from the accommodation be not passed against him. Instead the notice that was actually served on him is that the amount be deposited within fifteen days of the service of the notice on him but as to the showing of cause the 6th of April, 1963, was fixed for the purpose and it is as result of that notice that the objection was filed on the 6th of April 1963 which unfortunately fell beyond fifteen days of the service of the notice made on him. Thus the notice being not a notice in accordance with the requirements of the law, in the eye of law no notice has been served on him and so it cannot be said that the objection was file by him beyond the period of fifteen days of the service of notice during which he was expected to file his, objection to the notice. The contention appears to be correct. 8. The learned counsel for the landlords opposite parties, however pointed out that along with the notice even a copy of the application under Sec. 7-B of the Act was sent the tenant and served on him. Paragraph 5 of that application reads a: follows: - "5. That the applicants pray that a notice under Sec. 7-B (3) b served on the opposite party asking him to pay Rs. 774/- (It would be Rs. 240/- in the connected case) the amount of arrears within 15 days of the service thereof or to show cause within the said period why an order directing him to be evicted from the above accommodation be no passed against him, and, on his fail are to pay the amount of arrears an show cause within the said period an order of ejectment of the opposite party from the said accommodation be passed in favour of the applicant." 9. Pointing to this paragraph, it was urged that there was no occasion for the tenant to be prejudiced by the defective notice sent by the Munsif as this paragraph clearly pointed out that the amount had to be deposited within fifteen days and also the objection, if any, filed within the period. 10. This argument cannot be accepted. Paragraph 5 of the application under Sec. 7-B of the Act contains only the prayer of the landlords that a notice of the type mentioned therein and contemplated by sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 7-B of the Act be issued to the tenant. There was no occasion for the tenant to think that notice had actually been issued in accordance with, the prayer of the landlords. Orders are not always passed by Courts in accordance with the prayers of the petitioners, before them. A petitioner may make a prayer for an order being passed in a certain manner but the Court may still pass an order of a different type from that contemplated by the petitioner. Orders are not always passed by Courts in accordance with the prayers of the petitioners, before them. A petitioner may make a prayer for an order being passed in a certain manner but the Court may still pass an order of a different type from that contemplated by the petitioner. If in the circumstances the notice that was actually served on the tenant, was different from the notice that was contemplated by the landlords in their petition there was no occasion for the tenant to think that the Court meant to serve a notice on him in accordance with the prayer of the landlords contained in the petition. If in the circumstances the tenant did not file his objections within fifteen days of the service of the notice on him which was served on the 8th of March, 1963, but he filed them on the 6th of April, 1963 the date actually given in the notice it cannot be said that he is to blame. 11. It was then contended that die 6th of April, 1963 was fixed only for the convenience of the Court so that the file of the case might be brought up before it for orders. It was not fixed for the purpose of the tenant to file an objection even though it fell beyond that period of fifteen days allowed under the law. It may be that that was the purpose of the Court in fixing the date as the 6th of April, 1963, but there was no occasion for the tenant to know that that was the purpose and in spite of the 6th of April, 1963 being shown in the notice as, the date for his putting in appearance and filing objections, he should file objections within fifteen days of the service of notice on him. Th,e Court could have issued a notice in terms of sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 7-B and could have directed the office to put the case up for orders after fifteen days of the service of the notice on the tenant whether or notice an objection was filed during that period or the money deposited, instead of fixing a specific date for the filing of the objections in the notice itself. 12. 12. The result is that it must be held that in exercise of his jurisdiction in issuing notice under Sec. 7-B (3) of the Act the 'Munsif has acted with illegality or with material irregularity. The order dated the 6th of April, 1963, is accordingly set aside and also the notice dated 11th February/7th March, 1963 and the Munsif is directed to proceed in the case in accordance with law by issuing a proper notice under sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 7-B of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. In view of the circumstances of this case the parties shall bear their own costs.