ORDER K.B. Asthana, J. - This is a Plaintiff landlord's appeal from a decree of dismissal of a suit for eviction of the Defendant-tenant from a shop. 2. Alleging that the Defendant did not pay the arrears of rent despite a notice of demand having been served upon him asking him to pay up within one month of the receipt thereof the Plaintiff landlord filed the suit for his eviction after having terminated the tenancy by a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. I am not concerned in this appeal with some other pleas raised by the Plaintiff-landlord as nothing will turn on them in this appeal. The defence set up was that the Plaintiff-landlord refused to accept the rent when the tender was made to him personally and also refused to accept the money orders when the rent was remitted to him, the Defendant-tenant, therefore, had to take recourse to Section 7-C of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) and deposited the rent due on the date of the application u/s 7-C and continued to deposit periodically the rent up-to-date. Thus there was no rent in arrear on the date when the notice demanding the payment of arrears was sent by the Plaintiff landlord. 3. The learned Munsif held that the deposit made by the Defendant tenant u/s 7-C of the Act was not a valid deposit as no notice for the subsequent deposits was served upon the Plaintiff-landlord. On that finding the learned Munsif held that the Defendant tenant was in arrears of rent and he having not complied with the notice of demand for payment of arrears served upon him, was liable to be evicted. 4. The learned Civil Judge on appeal by the Defendant tenant reversed the finding of the learned Munsif on the question of validity of the deposit u/s 7-C of the Act and held that the Defendant tenant was entitled to be given credit of the deposit and no rent was in arrears on the date the notice of demand was sent by the Plaintiff landlord to the Defendant tenant. The appeal was allowed and the decree so far as the eviction of the Defendant tenant was concerned from the shop in dispute was set aside and the Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed in regard to that relief. The appeal was allowed and the decree so far as the eviction of the Defendant tenant was concerned from the shop in dispute was set aside and the Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed in regard to that relief. Being aggrieved the Plaintiff landlord has come up in second appeal to this Court. 5. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Defendant tenant will be entitled to the benefit of the deposits made by him u/s 7-C of the Act. 6. It appears that in the courts below there was some confusion which arose on account of an entry made in the register of deposits in the court of the Munsif maintained u/s 7-C of the Act. The Defendant tenant's case u/s 7-C of the Act was registered as Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962. One instalment of the subsequent deposit amounting to Rs. 69.75 Paisa was made on 24-8-1962. The tender form Ext. A-2 on record shows that in the second column regarding the name of the parties and the number of case the following was filled by the counsel of the Defendant tenant: "Munsif West Allahabad, Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962, Sri Sahdeo Prasad v. Sri Ram Jaiswal." Even a casual perusal of that entry shows that there has been an interpolation. The digit 8' of the number 108, which is in Hindi, has been converted by putting a small curved dash above it in a different ink to show that the digit is 9' as written in Hindi. An affidavit was filed by the Defendant tenant in the trial court to the effect that an attempt has been made in Ext. A-2 to convert the number 108 into number 109. Both the courts below recorded a concurrent finding that Ex. A-2 relates to the Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962 and the deposit of Rs. 69. 75 Paisa was made through that tender in that case and not in the Misc. Case No. 109 of 1962. In the court below the other counter-foils of the tender form, the Nazarat Register and the Bank papers were perused which confirmed the fact that the deposit of the said sum was made by the counsel of the Defendant in Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962. Case No. 109 of 1962. In the court below the other counter-foils of the tender form, the Nazarat Register and the Bank papers were perused which confirmed the fact that the deposit of the said sum was made by the counsel of the Defendant in Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962. The confusion arose as in the deposit register maintained u/s 7-C relating to the Munsif's West Court, Allahabad, the clerk entered Misc. Case No. 109 of 1962 as the number of the case while correctly reproducing the names of the parties of Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962. Whether it was an inadvertent mistake or a deliberate attempt to divert the deposit of Rs. 69.75 Paisa to another case is not the question which should detain me in so far as this appeal is concerned. I agree with the view taken by the learned Judge of the lower appellate court that this mistake by the clerk of the court will not convert the deposit of Rs. 69.75 made by the tender Ext. A-2 in Civil Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962 to a deposit made in Misc. Case No. 109 of 1962. I am convinced beyond doubt that the deposit of Rs. 69.75 on 24-8-1962 was made by the Defendant tenant towards the rent of the shop in Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962 and it was to be credited to the account of Sri Sahdeo Prasad Jaiswal, the Plaintiff landlord. I, for my own satisfaction, summoned the register and the files of the two Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962 and No. 109 of 1962. The duplicate or triplicate, whatever it may be, form of the tender found from the record of Civil Misc. Case No. 109 of 1962 clearly shows that the number of the Misc. case mentioned at two places in that form is 108. By no stretch of imagination could it be read as 109. The inference is irresistible that Ex. A-2 which is one of the duplicates of the tender form, the figure 108 in it in the second column was interpolated. I think it was the duty of the trial court when it was brought to its notice by an affidavit filed by the Defendant tenant that an attempt has been made to interpolate the figure, to hold an enquiry. I think it was the duty of the trial court when it was brought to its notice by an affidavit filed by the Defendant tenant that an attempt has been made to interpolate the figure, to hold an enquiry. Any attempt to interfere with the records of the court, more so an attempt to interpolate a document filed on record, must be taken serious notice of and the court where such a document has been filed and interpolated must hold an enquiry. I regret to say that the trial court has failed in that duty and seems to have slurred over such a serious allegation made before it. The appellate court also ought not to have given a Nelson's eye, so to say and should have directed the trial court to enquire and fix the responsibility. I think the matter is not too old as yet and it should be enquired into. Likewise, an explanation should be called from the clerk responsible for making entries in the Register No. 35 relating to Munsif's West Court, Allahabad, at serial No. 733 and as also from any other higher ministerial Officer responsible for supervision. The matte is all the more serious as it has been stated before me by the learned counse for the Plaintiff landlord that when ht withdrew the money so deposited u/s 7-C of the Act in Misc. Case No. 108 of 1962, he did not receive the amount of Rs. 69.75 Paisa which was reported to have been taken away by the counsel who was appearing for the landlord in Civil Misc. Case No. 109 of 1962. Obviously there has been a mistake on the part of the office of the court of the Munsif West. It is a well settled principle of law that for the mistake of the court a party will not suffer. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff landlord has not received the amount of Rs. 69.75 Paisa from the court of the Munsif West, the deposit having been made in that case by the tenant to the credit of the landlord, as it is the concurrent finding of the two courts below with which finding of fact I have no hesitation to affirm, the provisions of the law will take their course and benefit of the deposit must go to the Defendant tenant. 7. 7. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Appellant that the deposit of the rent by the Defendant tenant u/s 7-C of the Act was not a valid deposit inasmuch as the Plaintiff landlord was within his rights to refuse to accept the rent as the Defendant tenant had claimed to be the tenant of a larger portion and had tendered the rent not for the shop let out but of the shop including larger area of the land as having been demised to him. I do not find any such objection having been raised by the Plaintiff landlord in the proceedings u/s 7-C of the Act. What was set up as defence in that proceeding through a counter affidavit was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as on the day when the application for deposit was made the tenancy had stood terminated and the subsequent occupation of the shop by the Applicant was that of a trespasser and the provisions of the Act did not apply. In fact the allegation that the rent for the shop was tendered personally but was refused without any cause and that when it was remitted through money order, that was also refused without any cause, was not controverted by the Plaintiff landlord in his counter-affidavit filed in the proceedings u/s 7-C of the Act. The tenant, therefore, has made out a case u/s 7-C(1) of the Act and the deposit of the rent having been made in he Court of the Munsif West, Sub-section (6) of Section 7-C will come into operation and he rent would be deemed to have been duly paid to the landlord. See Israr Ahmad v. Sant Ram 1971 AWR 401 . 8. I am unable to appreciate the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the fiction Under Sub-section (6) will not be operative as on the evidence in the case it is dear that a sum of Rs. 69.75 Paisa did not actually come into the hands of the Plaintiff landlord. As I understand the argument, what the learned Counsel attempted to show was that when as a fact it was established that the rent has not come into the hands of the landlord, then no amount of fiction Under Sub-section (6) can efface that fact. 69.75 Paisa did not actually come into the hands of the Plaintiff landlord. As I understand the argument, what the learned Counsel attempted to show was that when as a fact it was established that the rent has not come into the hands of the landlord, then no amount of fiction Under Sub-section (6) can efface that fact. This argument, if accepted, will be completely destructive of the provisions of Section 7-C(6) and what the law enjoins the Court to imagine and regard it to be existing as a fact can always be defeated by actually proving that the fact exists otherwise. Such a position cannot be countenanced as that will not only destroy the fiction but will amount to ignoring the law itself. Moreover, there is nothing in Sub-section (6) making its application dependent upon the amount deposited actually going into the hands of the landlord. Its provisions, to my mind, start working when a deposit of rent has been made as aforesaid, that is, when it is made under conditions mentioned in Sub-sections (1) or (2) as the case be and in the court of the Munsif having jurisdiction. Whether the landlord withdraws that amount or that amount is lost to him after being deposited in court by the mistake of the court officials or for any other reason, will not deprive the tenant of the benefit. I think the learned Judge of the court below has taken a right view in holding that the Defendant tenant was not in arrears of rent when the notice of demand was sent to him by the Plaintiff landlord. 9. It was then suggested that the learned Munsif did not pass any final order u/s 7-C for accepting the deposits as he left the matter open to the parties to agitate and observed that the tenant could go on making the deposits at his own risk. I am not impressed with this argument. So long as the deposits were permitted to be made, the landlord himself having withdrawn it and the relationship of the landlord and tenant having been found to exist, the requirement of Section 7-C of the Act were fulfilled. No specific order of any kind is envisaged u/s 7-C of the Act. 10. Thus the Defendant tenant was entitled to the protection afforded to him u/s 3 of the Act. No specific order of any kind is envisaged u/s 7-C of the Act. 10. Thus the Defendant tenant was entitled to the protection afforded to him u/s 3 of the Act. The suit of the Plaintiff landlord for eviction was not maintainable. The Plaintiff landlord had no right to evict the Defendant tenant. 11. For the reasons given above, I find no force in this appeal and dismiss it with costs. 12. It would be open to the Plaintiff landlord to approach the Munsif again for payment of Rs. 69.75 P. and the court will consider the matter in accordance with law.