JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - A suit for ejectment was filed by the plaintiff respondent - on the ground of default in payment of rent inspite of notice of demand and for having damaged the property. The trial court repelled both the grounds and dismissed the suit. The relief for rent was also refused on the ground that rent and mesne profits were already in deposit and the plaintiff could withdraw them from the court. The plaintiff went up in revision. The lower appellate court affirmed the finding that there was no substantial damage to the property. 2. On the question of non-payment of rent, the lower appellate court observed that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 because the deposit was not made on the first date of hearing of the suit on this view, the revision was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the suit for ejectment was decreed. The defendant-tenant has now come to this Court in revision. 3. The facts are that February 7, 1974 was the first date of hearing. On this date, a written statement was filed and an application under subsection (4) of section 20 of the new Rent Control Act of 1972 along with a tender of the requisite amount was also filed. The Court approved and signed the tender and returned it on February 9, 1974. The money was actually deposited in bank on February 12, 1974. The lower court held that this was not a valid deposit on the date of the first hearing. It was delayed by several days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhargava, has invited my attention to a Division Bench in Mst. Gomti v. Lachman Das Champa Ram and another, AIR 1934 Allahabad 817 in which it was held that a bona fide tender amounts to payment unless there is a suggestion that the applicant was not in a position to make the payment at the time when he filed the tender in court. This principle was laid down in the context of Order 21, Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires an auction-purchaser to pay three fourths of the purchase money into court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property. This principle was laid down in the context of Order 21, Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires an auction-purchaser to pay three fourths of the purchase money into court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property. In that case, the tender was filed on the fifteenth day. After it was received approval of the Court, the money was deposited in the treasury on the sixteenth day. The Court held that the deposit was valid because it was settled law that a bona fide tender amounts to payment. In other words, if the tender was made on a particular day, the deposit or the payment will, in law be deemed also to have been made on the same day. This Division Bench was noticed with approval by a Full Bench in Mst. Indrasani v. Din Ali, 1968 A.W.R. 167. Applying this principle, the position is that on February 7, 1974 which was the first date of hearing, when the tender was filed, the amount will be deemed to have been deposited in Court on that date, although it was, in fact, deposited in the Bank on February 12, 1974. It cannot hence be said that the defendants violated tho provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. 5. Before the lower court it also appears to have been argued that an earlier deposit made on October 17, 1973 under the old Act will not be of any use because the landlord had expressed his willingness to accept the rent directly and hence there was no occasion to avail of Section 7-C. I have seen the notice of demand. It did not make any demand for any rent. It did not say that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months. All it said was that with effect from July 15, 1972 the tenant was liable to pay rent at Rs. 4.69 per month in place of Rs. 3.75 and that he was also liable to pay water tax. It is admitted that the tenant promptly replied to this notice and said that he was prepared to pay the extra demands made in the notice. 4.69 per month in place of Rs. 3.75 and that he was also liable to pay water tax. It is admitted that the tenant promptly replied to this notice and said that he was prepared to pay the extra demands made in the notice. This notice of July 29, 1972 cannot be termed as a valid notice of demand within the meaning either of the old Rent Control Act or the new Act because, firstly, there was no allegation that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and, secondly, it did not make any such demand of the rent. There was hence no cause of action for a suit for eviction of the tenant on ground of default in paying rent inspite of a notice. 6. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court restored, with costs.