JUDGMENT A.K. Kirty, J. - This appeal involves, inter alia, questions relating to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 7-C of U.P. Act, No. III of 1947 and Rule 9 of the Rules framed under that Act. At the hearing of the appeal before C.S.P. Singh, J., the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Lakshmi Prasad, J., in Second Appeal No. 146 of 1964 in which also similar questions had arisen for consideration. C.S.P. Singh, J. being unable to agree with the decision of Lakshmi Prasad, J., referred the following two questions for decisions by a larger Bench :- (1) Whether it is necessary for a tenant to comply with the formalities of Rule 9 of the Rules in case of subsequent deposits made under Section 7-C of the Act ? (2) Does the non-compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules in the case of subsequent deposits made under Section 7-C of the Act disentitle the tenant from claiming the benefit of Section 7-C(6) of the Act ? The matter has come up before us in consequence of the aforesaid order of C.S.P. Singh, J. 2. Since two questions of law only have been referred by the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the second appeal itself nor to discuss the same. 3. Section 7-C of U.P. Act, III of 1947 provides as follows :- "7-C. Deposit of Rent in Court :- (1) When a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may in the prescribed manner deposit such rent and continue to deposit any 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. (2) Where any bonafide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may similarly deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent Court, or by settlement between the parties continue to deposit, in like manner, the rent that may subsequently became due in respect of such building. (3) The deposit referred to in sub-section (1) or (2) shall be made in the Court of the Munsiff having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. (4) On any deposit being made under sub-section (1), the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in that behalf. (5) When a deposit has been made under sub-section (2) the amount of the 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. (6) In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord". 4. From a perusal of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 7-C it will be clear that a tenant can deposit rent in the Court of the Munsif concerned only when either of the two conditions mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) exists. The requisite condition under sub-section (1) is that a landlord has refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him, and the condition under sub-section (2) is that there exists a bonafide doubt or dispute as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent. The said two sub-sections further provide for continuance of deposits of subsequent rents by the tenant who has made any initial deposit of rent under either of the two conditions mentioned in those sub-sections. Sub-section (1) requires in so many words the first deposit to be made "in the prescribed manner". Insofar as the deposit of subsequent rents is concerned, sub-section (1) does not expressly require same to be again deposited in prescribed manner. In sub-section (2), however, occures the expression : "continue to deposit, in like manner". The words "in like manner" indicate that the subsequent deposits have also to be made in the same manner in which the first deposit is to be made that is in the prescribed manner. Sub-section (4) provides for serving a notice of deposit made under sub-section (1) of the landlord, and also for the withdrawal of the amount in deposit by the landlord on an application made by him in that behalf. Sub-section (4) provides for serving a notice of deposit made under sub-section (1) of the landlord, and also for the withdrawal of the amount in deposit by the landlord on an application made by him in that behalf. Under sub-section (6) the deposits made under sub-section (2) are to be held by the Court for the benefit of the person who may be found ultimately entitled to the same. Sub-section (6) provides that where a deposit has been made under sub-section (1) or (2), the rent is to be deemed to have been paid by the tenant to the landlord. This sub-section is clearly intended to protect the tenant concerned from being ejected by a landlord, who institutes a suit for ejectment purporting to act under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. 5. There is nothing in Section 7-C which requires any notice to be given to the landlord before the acceptance of any deposit made by the tenant. The only notice which is to be served on the landlord is the one contemplated by sub-section (4) and that notice is in respect of the deposit only to enable the landlord to withdraw the same if he so desires. It has already been mentioned that Sections 7-C(1) and (2) both require the initial deposit in either case to be made in "the prescribed manner". Rule 9 of the Rules framed under Section 17 of the Act provides as follows :- "Rule 9(i) Any tenant who desire to deposit rent under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 7-C of the Act, shall deposit the amount in the Court of Munsif having jurisdiction in the area, under the head "P-Deposits and Advances II - deposit not bearing interest C-Other deposit Accounts (B) Departmental and Judicial deposits - Civil Deposits-Civil Court's deposits". (ii) The tenant shall at the time of making such deposits make an application to the Court in form given in Appendix 'A'. Along with the application he shall file as many copies thereof as there are landlords and shall also deposit process fee as may be necessary for service of notices - on each landlord. The process fee shall be deposited and the notices shall be served in accordance with the rule made by the High Court for subordinate Civil Courts. Along with the application he shall file as many copies thereof as there are landlords and shall also deposit process fee as may be necessary for service of notices - on each landlord. The process fee shall be deposited and the notices shall be served in accordance with the rule made by the High Court for subordinate Civil Courts. (iii) The notice to the landlord shall be issued in the form as in Appendix "B" along with a copy of the application". 6. The question for consideration is whether all the three clauses of Rule 9 conjointly constitute "the prescribed manner" contemplated in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7-C. Clause (iii) of the said Rule has nothing to do with the deposit at all. It provides for issuing notice to the landlord in the form given in Appendix 'B' Clause (iii), therefore, cannot constitute an integral part of the prescribed manner contemplated under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7-C. Clause (i) of Rule 9 specifically lays down the prescribed manner of deposit. This clause is self contained and, insofar as the actual act of making a deposit is concerned, it does not require anything further to be done. The prescribed manner contemplated in sub-sections (1) and (2), therefore, can reasonably be held to be provided by clause (i), Rule 9. Clause (ii) of the said Rule requires some further things to be done by the tenant at the time of making the deposits permitted under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7-C. This is clear from the opening words of clause (ii) which read : "The tenant shall at the time of making such deposits". 7. The point now to be considered is whether the things which clause (ii) requires to be done are to be done by way of compliance of the "prescribed manner" of deposit of rent or by way of doing things which are collateral of incidental to the making of the deposit. In our opinion, clause (ii) does not relate to manner of deposit nor lays down any mandatory or indispensible condition without the fulfilment of which no deposit can be accepted as a deposit in the prescribed manner. In our opinion, clause (ii) does not relate to manner of deposit nor lays down any mandatory or indispensible condition without the fulfilment of which no deposit can be accepted as a deposit in the prescribed manner. The purpose behind clause (ii) clearly appears to be to make available to the Munsif material information and particulars relating to the deposit simultaneously with the making of the deposit, and also to enable him, after the deposit has been made, to give notice to the landlord as required by sub-section (4) of Section 7-C of the Act. This is also sufficiently indicated by the form of the application given in Appendix A which the tenant has to make under clause (ii). When any deposit, whether under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) of Section 7-C, is made for the first time the tenant necessarily will have to furnish the required particulars pertaining to the deposit, and this is required to be done by an application in the form given in Appendix A. Once such deposit has been made and all necessary particulars have been furnished, the tenant becomes entitled to deposit rents for subsequent periods as a matter of course so long as the landlord does not signify by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept rent as required by sub-section (i) of Section 7-C and in a case falling under sub-section (2) thereof until the removal of the doubt or the settlement of the dispute as to the person entitled to receive rent in respect of the accommodation. The making of repeated applications in the form given in Appendix A in cases of such subsequent deposits would virtually be complying with idle formalities. The making of such applications, in our opinion, cannot be held to be mandatory, not a requirement of the "prescribed manner". Likewise the deposit of process fee clause (ii) of Rule 9 cannot also be held. In any case, the failure or omission to make such applications or to deposit process fee cannot entail the consequence of disentitling the tenant from claiming the benefit of Section 7-C of the Act. The doubt or ambiguity in the relevant provisions if any, must be resolved by accepting the interpretation which will afford protection to the tenant for whose benefit primarily they have been made. 8. The doubt or ambiguity in the relevant provisions if any, must be resolved by accepting the interpretation which will afford protection to the tenant for whose benefit primarily they have been made. 8. For the reasons stated above, our answers to the two questions respectively are that in cases of subsequent deposits compliance with the formalities of Rule 9 of the Rules is not absolutely necessary and can be dispensed with, and that, in any event, non-compliance thereof does no disentitle the tenant from claiming the benefit of Section 7-C(6) of the Act.