JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE appellants are the landlords and the respondents are the tenants. The respondents filed an application under section 25 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with an allegation that they are tenants in a shop of the house of the appellant bearing municipal Number 6/541, situated in Chavdi Bazar, Lashkar; they pay rent at the rate of Rs. 25 per month and the tenancy starts from 21st of every month. Then they alleged that reason for filing this application is that the landlords refused to accept the rent and they want to increase the rent also, the respondents sent two money orders one on 29-6-1966 for Rs. 325 and the other on 3-3-1967 for Rs. 532, which were refused by the landlords without any reason. This application is filed on 26-4-1967. The amount of rent was deposited on 8-5-1967. The Rent Controlling Authority issued a notice on 8-5-1967 to the landlords that the arrears of rent have been deposited and they should file reply to the application filed by the tenants-respondents. ( 2. ) THE reply submitted by the landlords mentions that the rent has been deposited not according to law; that the tenants were always defaulters; the amount was never refused that there is misjoinder of landlords-appellants, that according to them tenants have not deposited the rent within the prescribed limitation under the Act and, therefore, the application should be dismissed. ( 3. ) THE undisputed facts in the case are that the application was presented on 26-4-1967 and the amount was deposited on 8-5-1967. The money orders coupons which are produced are for the amount for 21st May, 1965 to 20th june, 1966 and the other is from 21st May, 1965 to 28th February, 1967 and they bear the endorsements that these money orders were refused by the landlords. The second undisputed fact is that the amount of Rs. 600 was deposited on 8-5-1967 (8th May 1967 ). The third undisputed fact is that the tenancy starts from the 21st of every month. The trial Court, after taking evidence of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the money orders were refused without any sufficient cause. They were tendered to the landlords and they refused them. On these findings, the trial Court, under section 26 of the Act, imposed Rs. The trial Court, after taking evidence of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the money orders were refused without any sufficient cause. They were tendered to the landlords and they refused them. On these findings, the trial Court, under section 26 of the Act, imposed Rs. 25 as a fine against the appellants. The trial Court did not decide the matter regarding limitation at all. The appellants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Gwalior. The appeal was decided by the Third Additional district Judge, Gwalior on 4-3-1976 and the appeal was dismissed. It held in its judgment that the application was filed on 25-4-1967 and the first deposit of the rent was made on 8-5-1967. The deposit of the rent was proper. Consequently, the appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the appellant-landlords refused to accept the rent without any reasonable cause, and, therefore, the fine imposed against the appellants is proper. Against this, the present Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. ( 4. ) THE main grievance of the learned counsel Shri R. K. Dikshit, for the appellants, before me is that both the Courts fell in error in holding that the application is within limitation. He submitted before me that unless and until the deposit is made the Rent Controlling Authority gets no jurisdiction and if that deposit is not according to section 26 of the Act, then no order could be passed under sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Act. ( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, Shri N. K. Jain, submitted before me that in fact, the application was filed on 26-4-1967 and the Court passed an order for deposit on 8-5-1967. Therefore, it should be presumed that the application is within time and the deposit also is correctly made. He also submitted that because this amount is subsequently withdrawn by the landlords, therefore, they have waived their objection regarding limitation and they are estopped from saying that the application is not within limitation. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing the counsel on both the sides, I will take first the point regarding estoppel by withdrawing the amount by the landlords. Firstly, there cannot be estoppel against law. Secondly, this amount was deposited for the payment to the landlords. Therefore, by withdrawing that amount, no right is created in the tenants. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing the counsel on both the sides, I will take first the point regarding estoppel by withdrawing the amount by the landlords. Firstly, there cannot be estoppel against law. Secondly, this amount was deposited for the payment to the landlords. Therefore, by withdrawing that amount, no right is created in the tenants. Therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that because of withdrawal, there is a bar created against the landlords, cannot be accepted. Therefore, I reject that objection. ( 7. ) SECTION 24 of the Act reads as under: "24. Receipt to be given for rent paid- (1) Every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the monthly next following the month for which it is payable. (2) Every tenant who makes a payment of rent to his landlord shall be entitled to obtain forthwith from the landlord or his authorised agent, a written receipt for the amount paid to him, signed by the landlord or his authorised agent. (3) If the landlord or his authorised agent refuses or neglects to deliver to the tenant a receipt referred to in sub-section (2), the Rent Controlling Authority may, on an application made to it in this behalf by the tenant within two months from the date of payment and after hearing the landlord or his authorised agent, by order direct the landlord or his authorised agent, to pay to the tenant by way of damages, such sum not exceeding double the amount of rent paid by the tenant and the costs of the application, and shall also grant a certificate to the tenant in respect of the rent paid. " It refers to the payment made by the tenant to the landlord and if payment of rent is made to the landlord and if he refuses to give a written receipt, then under section 24 an application can be made to the Rent Controlling Authority regarding the complaint of not giving the receipt by the landlord to the tenant. Section 25 deals with deposit of rent by the tenant. It reads thus:- "25. Section 25 deals with deposit of rent by the tenant. It reads thus:- "25. Deposit of rent by tenant.- (1) Where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered within time referred to in section 24 or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt referred to therein or where there is a bona fide doubt as to the persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Rent Controlling Authority in the prescribed manner and such deposit of rent shall be a full discharge of the tenant from the liability to pay rent to the landlord. (2) The deposit shall be accompanied by an application by the tenant containing the following particulars, namely: (a) The accommodation for which the rent is deposited with a description sufficient for identifying the accommodation; (b) the period for which the rent is deposited; (c) the name and address of the landlord or the person or persons claiming to be entitled to such rent; (d) the reasons and circumstances for which the application for depositing the rent is made; (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (3) On such deposit of the rent being made, the Rent Controlling Authority shall send in the prescribed manner a copy or copies of the application to the landlord or persons claiming to be entitled to the rent with an endorsement of the date of the deposit. (4) If an application is made for the withdrawal of any deposit of rent, the Rent controlling Authority shall, if satisfied that the applicant is the persons entitled to receive the rent deposited, order the amount of rent to be paid to him in the manner prescribed and such payment of rent shall be a full discharge of the Rent Controlling Authority from all liability to pay rent to the landlord: provided that no order for payment of any deposit of rent shall be made by the Rent controlling Authority under this sub-section without giving all persons named by the tenant in his application under sub-section (2), as claiming to be entitled to payment of such rent an opportunity of being heard and such order shall be without prejudice to the rights of such person to receive such rent being decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. (5) If at the time of filing the application under sub section (4), but not after the expiry thirty days from receiving the notice of deposit the landlord or the person or persons claiming to be entitled to the rent complain to the Rent Controlling Authority that the statements in the tenants application of the reasons and circumstances which Jed him to deposit the rent are untrue, the Rent Controlling Authority, after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard, may levy on the tenant a fine which may extend to an amount equal to two months rent, if the Rent Controlling Authority is satisfied that said statements were materially untrue and may order that a sum out of the fine realised be paid to the landlord as compensation. (6) The Rent Controlling Authority may, on the complaint of the tenant and after giving an opportunity to the landlord of being heard, levy on the landlord a fine which may extend to an amount equal to two months rent, if the Rent Controlling Authority is satisfied that the landlord, without any reasonable cause, refused to accept rent though tendered to him within the time referred to in section 24 and may further order that a sum out of the fine realised be paid to the tenant as compensation. " The meaning of section 25 is that if the landlord refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt within time to the tenant or refuses to accept the rent then the tenant can deposit the amount with the Rent Controlling Authority. Section 25 (2)says that such a deposit will be accompanied by an application giving certain particulars. Then, section 25 (3), (4), (5) and (6) deal with the procedure to be adopted by the Rent Controlling Authority and fine the Rent Controlling authority can impose. But according to section 26, which reads as under, there is a time-limit for making the deposit: "26. Time limit for making deposit and consequences of incorrect particulars in application for deposit- (1) No rent deposited under section 25 shall be considered to have been validly deposited under that section, unless the deposit is made twenty one days of the time referred to in section 24 for payment of the rent. Time limit for making deposit and consequences of incorrect particulars in application for deposit- (1) No rent deposited under section 25 shall be considered to have been validly deposited under that section, unless the deposit is made twenty one days of the time referred to in section 24 for payment of the rent. (2) No such deposit shall be considered to have been validly made, if the tenant wilfully makes any false statement in his application for depositing the rent, unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount deposited before the date of filing an application for the recovery of possession of the accommodation from the tenant. (3) If the rent is deposited within the time mentioned in sub section (1) and does not cease to be valid deposit for the reason mentioned in sub-section (2), the deposit shall constitute payment of rent to the landlord, as if the amount deposited has been validly tendered. " The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deposit made by the respondents is not according to section 26 of the Act and deposit only gives the jurisdiction to the Rent Controlling Authority to move under section 25. Here, it will be seen that the tenancy starts from 21st of every month. Therefore, if the amount was refused, then it should have been deposited within 21 days from 20th February, 1967. Calculated this way, the deposit on 8-5-1967 is beyond limitation and that will not be a valid deposit. Even assuming that second clause of section 24 applies, even then the deposit on 8-5-1967 is clearly beyond limitation. ( 8. ) THAT the deposit gives the jurisdiction to the Rent Controlling Authority and not the application is clear from section 25 itself. The section says that the tenant may deposit such amount with the Rent Controlling Authority in the prescribed manner and such deposit of rent shall be full discharge of the tenant from liability to pay rent to the landlord. Then, section 25 (2) says that this deposit is to be accompanied by an application by the tenant containing the following particulars. So, the importance in section 25 is given to the deposit and not to the application. If we see the prescribed form also under the M. P. Accommodation Control Rules, 1966, it also makes clear that the deposit is the main thing. So, the importance in section 25 is given to the deposit and not to the application. If we see the prescribed form also under the M. P. Accommodation Control Rules, 1966, it also makes clear that the deposit is the main thing. Therefore, I am of the view that unless deposit is made according to section 26, the Rent Controlling Authority gets no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the application was filed on 26-4-1967 and, therefore, it should be held that deposit on 8-5-1967 is proper, cannot be accepted. The three sections taken together create certain liability against the defaulter. It gives power to the Rent Controlling Authority to impose fine. In such circumstances, the sections of the Act will be construed very strictly. If a tenant wants to take benefit under those sections then he must fulfil all the conditions mentioned in the sections strictly. If he fails to do so, then he is not entitled to take any benefit, nor the Rent Controlling Authority has any jurisdiction to decide the matter or impose any fine. Therefore, the orders of both the Courts are clearly against the provisions of the Act and deposit not being within limitation, I have no hesitation in accepting the appeal and setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts. ( 9. ) I may add one more aspect of this case that in the instant case, the tender of amount of Rs. 532 was also not according to law, because the amount is not from 21st May, 1965 to 20th February, 1967, but it is from 21st May, 1965 to 28th February, 1967. The tenant had no right to send rent for seven days only. Either he should have sent for the full month of February-March, 1967, or none at all. The inclusion of the rent for seven days will not amount to a valid tender under sections 24 and 25 of the Act. ( 10. ) THEREFORE, the appeal is allowed with costs. Orders of the lower courts are set aside. It is held that the deposit on 8-5-1967 being beyond limitation and not according to section 26 of the Act, the Rent Controlling authority had no jurisdiction to impose any fine or to decide the matter. Counsels fee Rs. 100, if certified. Appeal allowed.