JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - This revision is before us consequent upon an order passed by a learned single judge of this Court. The question which arose for consideration by the learned Judge involved interpretation or clause (1) of Section 7-C of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U.P. Act III of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The learned Judge was of the view that there was conflict in decisions recorded by learned Judges of this Court in certain cases and hence the order of reference. Having perused the decisions referred to by the learned single Judge in his order of reference we find no conflict such as has been pointed out by the learned Judge. 2. Clause (1) of Section 7-C of the Act runs as follows: "When a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by the tenant in respect of any accommodation a tenant may in the prescribed manner deposit such rent and continue to deposit airy subsequent rent which becomes due in respect of such accommodation unless the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept." The applicant in the revision before us took recourse to the aforesaid provision and deposited rent in the court of the Munsif Ghaziabad with the assertion that his landlord had refused to accept the rent tendered to him several times. The applicant's case was that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 321- and the amount deposited by the applicant was a sum of Rs. 1281- as covering four months' rent. The prayer made by the applicant was that the amount be held by the court under clause (3) of Section 7-C of the Act and notice be issued to the landlord under clause (4) thereof. 3. Notice was issued to the landlord who filed 'objections asserting, inter alia, that the rent of the premises was Rs. 471/- per month and the applicant was. therefore, liable to pay rent at that rate. It was also asserted in the memo of objections that the applicant never tendered any rent to the landlord, that the landlord never refused to accept rent from the applicant and that, therefore, the applicant had no right to deposit any arrears in court as clause (1) of Section 7-C of the Act was not applicable. It was also asserted in the memo of objections that the applicant never tendered any rent to the landlord, that the landlord never refused to accept rent from the applicant and that, therefore, the applicant had no right to deposit any arrears in court as clause (1) of Section 7-C of the Act was not applicable. The prayer made in the memo of objections was that the application under Section 7-C was liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned Munsif took the view that so far as the controversy about rate of rent was concerned, it was not open to him to go into that question in the proceedings before him. As regards the assertion of the landlord that the applicant never tendered rent to him, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the applicant that the learned Munsif could not at that stage go into that question either. The argument advanced was that, though the court could go into this question before issuing, under clause (4) of Section 7-C of the Act, notice to the landlord, it was not open to the court to go into that question after notice had been issued to the landlord inasmuch as the fact that the court had directed notice to issue to the landlord must be interpreted to mean that the court was satisfied that the landlord had refused to accept rent. The learned Munsif rejected Ibis contention on the basis of the decision of S. D. Singh, J. in the case of Bihari Lal v. Shiam Dass, 1963 A.W.R. (H.C.Sec.) 399 The learned Munsif then proceeded to consider the merits of the controversy over the question whether the applicant had tendered rent to the landlord but the landlord refused to accept it. On a consideration of the material before him the learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the case set forward by the applicant could not be believed with the result that he (1:missed the application under clause (I) of Section 7-C of the Act. It is against this order that the applicant filed this revision. 5. On a consideration of the material before him the learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the case set forward by the applicant could not be believed with the result that he (1:missed the application under clause (I) of Section 7-C of the Act. It is against this order that the applicant filed this revision. 5. The only contention raised before us at the hearing of this revision is that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the asset-6:4i of the applicant in support of his application under clause (1) of Section 7-C of the Act that the landlord, had refused to accept rent lawfully paid to him by the applicant was correct or not. 6. There is no controversy that the decision of S. D. Singh, J., mentioned above, fully supports the view taken by the learned Munsif. Reliance before the learned single Judge was, however, placed on behalf of the applicant on two decisions of this Court as recording a contrary opinion. These two decisions have been cited by the learned single Judge as being the decision of Balram Upadhya, J. in the case of Sri Lalji Tandon v. Union of India, Civil Revision No. 344 of 1960, decided on 16th of February, 1961, and the decision of D. S. Mathur, J. in the case of S. Kailash Chandra Gupta v. Zafar Ahmad, Civil Revision No. 1093 of 1960, decided on 27th of July, 1964. It may be added that, so far as D. S. Mathur, J. is concerned, his decision in the case of Mr. Kishori Lal Durga Das v. Dhiraj La1, Civil Revision No. 549 of 1963, decided on 22nd of September, 1964, which was relied upon before the learned single Judge on behalf of the landlord, is in conformity with the decision of S.D. Singh, J. in Bihari Lal v. Shiam Dass, 1963 A.W.R. (H.C. Sec.) 399 The only two decisions which, therefore, came up for consideration as supporting the contention that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the assertion of the applicant that the landlord had refused to accept rent lawfully tendered by him was correct or otherwise . were the decision of Balram Upadhya, J. in Sri Lalji Tandon v. Union of India, Civil Revision No. 344 of 1960, decided on 16th of February, 1961 and that of D.S. Mathur, J. in S. Kailash Chandra Gupta v. Zafar Ahmad, Civil Revision No. 1093 of 1960, decided on 27th of July, 1964 referred to above.. On a perusal of these decisions we find that none of them supports the contention raised on behalf of the applicant. In fact the decision of D. S. Mathur, J. in the case of S. Kailash Chandra Gupta v. Zafar Ahmad, Civil Revision No. 1093 of 1960, decided on 27th of July, 1964 is in conformity with the view taken by D. S. Mathur, J. himself in the case of Kishori Lal Durga Das v. Dhiraj Lal, Civil Revision No. 549 of 1963, decided on 22nd of September, 1964, as also the decision recorded by S. D. Singh, J. in the case of Bihari Lal v. Shiam Dass, 1963 A.W.R. (H.C. Sec.) 399. 7. The decision recorded by Balram Upadhya, J. in the case of Sri Lalji Tandon v. Union of India, Civil Revision No. 344 of 1960, decided on 16th of February, 1961 was in connection with the provisions contained in clause (2) of Section 7-C of the Act which provides for a deposit of rent by the tenant, under Section 7-C of the Act, when a bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person entitled to receive rent. The case decided by D. S. Mathur, J. in S. Kailash Chandra Gupta v. Zafar Ahmad, Civil Revision No. 1093 of 1960, decided on 27th of July, 1964 was also one falling within clause (2) of Section 7-C of the Act and, if we may say so with respect to the learned Judge, D. S. Mathur, J. has given excellent reasons for distinguishing between the jurisdiction exercised by a Munsif under clause (1) and clause (2) of Section 7-C of the Act. The learned Judge has pointed out that, as regards a deposit under clause (1) clause (4) provides for the issuance of a notice to be served on the landlord, whereas no such provision is to be found in respect of a deposit made under clause (2) in regard to which the only provision, to be found in clause (5) , is that such deposit shall be held by the court for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the same shall be payable to such person. We desire to avoid being understood as expressing any opinion in regard to the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid decisions relating to a deposit uncle' clause (2). But in respect of cases of deposit under clause (1) of Section 7-C of the Act we have no hesitation in recording our opinion that the view taken by S. D. Singh, J. in Bihari Lal v. Shiam Dass, 1963 A.W.R. (H.C. Sec.) 399 and by D.S. Mathur, J. in Mr. Kishori Lal Durga Das v. Dhiraj Lal, in Civil Revision No. 549 of 1963, decided on 16th of February, 1961 is perfectly correct. 8. At the hearing of this revision reference was also made by learned counsel for the applicant to a decision by Bishambhar Dayal, J. in Civil Revision No. 1057 of 1967, decided on the 30th of August, 1967, as supporting the contention raised on behalf of the applicant. A perusal of the judgment recorded by Bishambhar Dayal, J. makes it clear that the case before him was also one falling under clause (2) of Section 7-C of the Act and, for the reasons given earlier in this judgment, this decision also does not support the contention raised on behalf of the applicant. 9. We need not reproduce the reasoning given by S. D. Singh, J. in support of his decision in the case of Bihari Lal v. Shiam Dass, 1963 A.W.R. (H.C. Sec.) 399 . Suffice it to say that we are in full agreement with his view that two facts, viz., whether the person who made the deposit was a tenant and that the landlord had refused to accept rent lawfully paid to him, were jurisdictional facts which must exist to entitle a tenant to take recourse to clause (1) of Section 7-C of the Act. Before issuing notice to the landlord under clause (4) of Section 7-C of the Act the learned Munsif will no doubt satisfy himself as to whether these two facts were prima facie made out by the application made by the tenant, but when notice to the landlord is issued under clause (4) and the landlord appears before the Munsif and tiles an objection questioning the existence of any of the two jurisdictional facts, it will not only be within the powers of the learned Munsif but indeed the duty of the learned Munsif to go again into the question as to whether or not the jurisdictional facts necessary to enable him to act under clause (1) of Section 7-C of the Act exist. 10. The result, the ore, is that-this revision must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.