ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - This defendants revision-application under Section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge setting aside the judgment of the trial court and decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-applicant. 2. The defendant-applicant has been tenant in the house of plaintiff-opposite party on a rent of Rs. 75/- per mensem. In 1973, the plaintiff-opposite party filed suit No. 66 of 1973 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant. The defendant contested the suit and deposited the entire arrears of rent and he further continued to deposit the monthly rent as and when due in the court of small causes in pursuance of O. XV, R. 5, C. P. C. On 2nd August, 1975, the Judge small causes Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of arrears of rent but he dismissed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment of the defendant. The Judge, Small Causes observed in his judgment that the defendant had paid rent for the period from 16th August, 1972 to 16th August, 1975. The suit was further dismissed on the ground that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid. The party did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree of the Judge, small causes dated 2nd August, 1975 and it became final. 3. The plaintiff-opposite party, however, filed another suit No. 3 of 1976 in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court for recover arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant out of which the present proceedings have arisen. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 13-4-1973 to October, 1975 and, as such, he was liable to ejectment. The defendant contested the suit and asserted that he had deposited the rent from August, 1972 to August, 1975 in Suit No. 66 of 1973 for the plaintiffs benefit, as such, he was not a defaulter. He further asserted that he had tendered rent for the months of September and October, 1975 by money order to the plaintiff-opposite party but he refused to accept the same. Thereafter he hag been depositing the rent in the Court. 4. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. He further asserted that he had tendered rent for the months of September and October, 1975 by money order to the plaintiff-opposite party but he refused to accept the same. Thereafter he hag been depositing the rent in the Court. 4. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 2,295/- as arrears of rent from 13-4-1973 to October, 1975 but it dismissed the plaintiffs suit so far as the defendants ejectment was concerned. The plaintiff-opposite party filed revision against the trial court judgment. The Additional District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the findings of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suit for defendants ejectment also. 5. The learned Additional District Judge held that even though the defendant had deposited rent in the earlier suit No. 66 of 1973, but that did not absolve him from his liability of paying the rent to the landlord on receipt of notice of demand. Since the defendant did not pay that amount to the landlord after the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, he was a defaulter and liable to ejectment. The trial courts finding that the deposit of rent made by the defendant in the earlier suit was for the benefit of the plaintiff and that he was not a defaulter, did not find favour with the Additional District Judge. 6. Learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant urged that the Additional District Judge acted with material irregularity in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. 1 find considerable force in the contention. 7. On the admitted facts, the defendant applicant had deposited rent upto 16th August, 1975 in the court of Judge, Small Causes in suit No. 66 of 1973. The defendant had made this deposit under O. 15, R. 5, C. P. C., non-theless the plaintiff had a right to withdraw that amount. The defendant had admitted his liability to pay the rent and since there was no dispute about the rate of the rent, the deposit made by the defendant could be withdrawn by the plaintiff. The defendant had never challenged his liability nor he had challenged the plaintiffs right to withdraw the said amount. The defendant had admitted his liability to pay the rent and since there was no dispute about the rate of the rent, the deposit made by the defendant could be withdrawn by the plaintiff. The defendant had never challenged his liability nor he had challenged the plaintiffs right to withdraw the said amount. In fact, on the service of the to the plaintiff stating that the money had already been deposited in the court and the plaintiff may withdraw the same and, if necessary the defendant was willing to help him in the matter. The defendant had no control over the deposit made in the Court, he could not withdraw the same as he had admitted the liability to pay the rent, the plaintiff was en-[titled to withdraw that amount. In this view of the matter, the deposit made by the defendant in the earlier suit discharged him from any liability to pay the same again to the landlord. The defendant, therefore, did not commit any default nor he was in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months on the date of the suit in question was filed. 8. It appears that the plaintiff had made an application for withdrawal of the amount in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes but he was not permitted to withdraw the entire amount as deposited by the defendant, instead he was permitted to withdraw Rs. 730.50 paise only which was the decretal amount The Judge Small Causes committed error in not permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the entire amount of rent deposited by the defendant. As discussed earlier, the plaintiff was en-entitled to the money deposited by the defendant in suit No. 66 of 1973. If the plaintiff could not withdraw the amount for the mistake committed by the court, the defendant could not be penalised for the same. 9. In the result, revision is allowed and the judgment and the decree of the 1st Additional District Judge is set aside and that of trial court is restored. Any amount deposited by the defendant-applicant in Suit No. 66 of 1973 and in the suit out of which the present proceedings arise shall be adjusted towards the decretal amount. Parties shall bear their own costs.