JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - In this revision application filed by the defendant a short and interesting question of law arises and it is whether in a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building to which Act No. III of 1947 did not apply and which suit was pending on the date of commencement of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act No. XIII of 1972, deposits made under section 7-C of Act No. III of 1947 would be available for getting the benefit provided in section 39 of Act No. XI11 of 1972. The suit of the plaintiff, opposite party had been filed on 11.1.1972 for ejectment of the defendant applicant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. There is no dispute that Act No. III of 1947 was not applicable to the disputed building. During the pendency of the suit the defendant-applicant made some deposits under section 7-C of Act No. III of 1947 and later on deposited the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation together with interest thereon and the full cost of the suit as required by section 39 of Act No. XIII of 1972. In doing so, the defendant-applicant took credit for the amounts which he had deposited under section 7-C of the Act No. III of 1947. 2. The learned trial court was of the opinion that the deposits made under section 7-C of Act No. 1II of 1947 could not be taken into consideration, the reason being that Act No. 1II of 1947 was not applicable, to the building in dispute. The suit, therefore, was decreed for the ejectment of the defendant- applicant and also for some arrears of rent and damages. Being aggrieved the defendant-applicant filed a revision application before the District Judge, Kanpur. 3. The learned District Judge disposed of the revision application by order dated 2.8.1975. He agreed with the findings which had been given by the learned trial court and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by it. Being aggrieved the defendant. applicant has tiled this revision petition. 4. 3. The learned District Judge disposed of the revision application by order dated 2.8.1975. He agreed with the findings which had been given by the learned trial court and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by it. Being aggrieved the defendant. applicant has tiled this revision petition. 4. It was submitted before me on behalf of the defendant-applicant that the deposits which had been made by him under section 7-C of Act No. 1II of 1947 should be available for the protection granted under section 39 of Act No. XIII of 1972. While elaborating this submission it was further contended that when the defendant-applicant made the deposits under section 7-C of Act No. 1II of 1947 the plaintiff-opposite party did not raise any objection and it was never her case that she would not be able to withdraw that money. The submission made thus was that so far as the defendant-applicant was concerned, he was absolved of the liability to pay the arrears of rent and to that extent he could not be treated in arrears. Another submission made was that substantial compliance of the conditions of Section 39 had been made by the defendant - applicant. On behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party, on the other hand, it was contended that since Act No. 1II of 1947 was not applicable to the disputed building, any deposit made under section 7-C of the Act would not be applicable to the defendant for the protection provided under section 39 of Act No. XIII of 1972. 5. I have carefully considered the respective submissions and I am of the opinion that the view taken by the courts below on the legal point is not correct. A similar question had cone up for consideration before this Court in Smt. Mathura Devi v. Sri Kailash Chand Bhatia, 1977 (2) R.C.J. 354, While analysing the provisions of section 39 it was observed in that order as under : - "The underlying principle of Section 39 could only be, in the first place to protect a tenant from actual eviction if he was prepared to discharge his entire liability at the appropriate time and incidentally also to give advantage to the landlord by ensuring a speedy payment of his entire claim. These twin objects of the legislature would be completely satisfied if the deposits already made by a defendant are also taken into account provided the total amount of the deposits completely discharges his liability. It was also held that the primary object of section 39 was to benefit the tenants who were willing to clear of the entire rent, damages, costs interest etc. made against them by saving them from the drastic consequences of eviction. Section 39, therefore, furnishes an instance of beneficial legislation intended for the protection of the tenant." Further it was observed :- "The real intention of the legislature in enacting section 39 appears to be to have the entire amount of rent, damages and interest etc. which are actually outstanding against the defendant, deposited in court. Therefore, if the deposit has already been made which fully or partly satisfies the amount claimed by the plaintiff, its repetition would be pointless tautology and would reduce the provision to a mere ritual and defeat the object of the legislature inasmuch as many a tenant might find it well-nigh impossible to make the deposit twice." 6. Respectfully following the decision I hold that the deposit which the defendant-applicant made under section 7-C would be available to him for the protection under section 39 of Act No. XIII of 1972. There is no dispute that the total amount of the deposits completely discharge the defendant's liability. Therefore, the learned District Judge committed an error of jurisdiction in dismissing the defendant's revision and maintaining the decree for eviction. 7. I, therefore, allow this revision application and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-applicant from the disputed building. The defendant applicant will get his costs of this court from the plaintiff opposite party.