JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This revision application by the defendant is directed against the order and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court Mainpuri decreeing the plaintiff Opposite party's suit for arrears of rent and delivery of possession of the house in dispute. 2. Gita Prasad plaintiff Opposite Party filed a suit in Court of Judge, Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession of the disputed building on the allegation that the defendant Ratan Singh has been tenant of the house in dispute on a rent of Rs. 30/- per mensem since February, 1970, and he had paid no rent at all. He claimed recovery of arrears of rent from October, 1970 to September, 1973 at the rate of 30/- per mensem and also for possession of the house in dispute. The defendant contested the suit and asserted that he was not a defaulter, he has been paying rent to Satya Narain who has been issuing receipt to him and later on relations between the parties became strained on account of a criminal case going on between them under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, consequently the landlord refused to accept the rent. Thereupon the defendant had been depositing the same in the Court of the Munsiff under Section 7 C of the U.P. Act III of 1947. On the pleadings of the parties, the III Addl. District Judge, Mainpuri, framed four different issues. The learned Judge held that the rate of rent was Rs. 30/- per mensem and the plaintiff Geeta Prasad was owner of the house in question. The defendant has no grievance against those findings. The defendant has however assailed the findings of the learned Judge on issue Nos. 2 and 4. These issues were in the following manner : 2. Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent since February, 1970 ? If so its effect ? 4. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled ? 3. It appears that the defendant had filed a number of receipts issued by Satya Narain the son of the plaintiff, in support of his plea that he had been receiving rent and issuing receipts on behalf of the plaintiff. If so its effect ? 4. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled ? 3. It appears that the defendant had filed a number of receipts issued by Satya Narain the son of the plaintiff, in support of his plea that he had been receiving rent and issuing receipts on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Judge discarded these rent receipts on the ground that Satya Narain was not the owner of the house, therefore, any rent paid to Satya Narain or any receipt issued by him could not be taken into consideration. The learned Judge without discussing the evidence observed that the receipts filed by the defendant appeared to be false because the statement of Satya Narain was that the defendant had never paid more than Rs. 30/- at a time, whereas receipts indicated that some times rent amounting to Rs. 180/- had been paid at a time. On these findings issue No. 2 was answered against the defendant and he was held to be defaulter. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are contrary to law. Once rent receipts were issued by Satya Narain, who was plaintiff's son, the receipts could not be discarded merely because he was not the owner of the house. It is not necessary under the law that receipts should be issued only by the owner Satya Narain, plaintiff's son was acting as agent of the landlord and he had been accepting rent on his behalf. Any receipt issued by him was a good piece of evidence to prove the payment of rent especially so when there was no conflict of interest between the father and the son. The learned Judge committed patent error in discarding the receipts merely on the basis of oral testimony of Satya Narain. It is well settled that a document duly proved cannot be discarded merely on the basis of some oral testimony of a party. Once the receipts were proved and exhibited and admitted into evidence, those could not be discarded merely on Satya Narain's statement that he never received any amount more than Rs. 30/- at a time. Contents of the receipts of the amount mentioned therein could not be barred on the oral testimony of Satya Narain. The dispute between the parties could not be decided without considering those receipts. 30/- at a time. Contents of the receipts of the amount mentioned therein could not be barred on the oral testimony of Satya Narain. The dispute between the parties could not be decided without considering those receipts. 5. The learned Judge again committed patent error in answering issue No. 4 against the defendant. The learned Judge held that the deposit made by the defendant in proceedings under Section 7-C of the 1947 Act could not be taken into account as the deposit had been made in the name of Satya Narain and not on the name of the plaintiff who was owner of the house in dispute. On a perusal of the record, I find that the defendant had made an application before the Munsiff under Section 7-C of the U.P. Act III of 1947 for permission to deposit the rent as the landlord had refused to accept the same. In the application, he had impleaded Geeta Prasad as well as his son Satya Narain. The Munsiff issued notice to both the persons and allowed time to file objection, but none of them filed any objection. On March 2, 1974 Satya Narain was present and after hearing counsel for the parties the Munsiff allowed the defendant tenant to deposit rent in Court under Section 7-C of the Act. These clearly show that the defendant had been validly depositing rent under Section 7-C of the Act in Munsiff's Court, therefore he could not be held defaulter as the deposit made by him was for the benefit of the landlord, since Satya Narain, plaintiff's son had been realising rent from the defendant and he had been issuing rent receipts the defendant was justified in depositing rent in the name of Satya Narain. As already noted there is nothing on record to show that there is any conflict of interest between Satya Narain and his father. There is no valid reason for ignoring the deposit made by the tenant under Section 7-C of the Act. 6. In my opinion the learned Judge has committed material illegality in exercising his jurisdiction. 7. I, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the order and decree of the Judge, Small Causes and remand the proceedings to him for disposal of the suit in accordance with law. 8. Parties shall bear their own costs.