JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. -This is a defendants appeal filed in a suit for ejectment. Both the courts below have passed the decree for ejectment against the defendant finding that he had committed default in payment of rent and consequently he was liable to ejectment. 2. The record in the court below was reported to have been burnt down. The learned counsel for the appellant thereupon filed a paper book containing the various necessary papers on the record. I had granted time to the learned counsel for the respondent to file his own paper book but he did not file any fresh papers, therefore, the paper book filed by the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted and is made a part of the record. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendant was a sub-tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the disputed portion at a rent of Rs. 45/- per month. Notice (Ex. 1) was issued to the defendant on 15-12-65. In that notice the defendant was asked to pay the rent along with the Bhumi Bhawan Kar from 15th August, 1965 to 14th December 1965. The Bhumi Bhawan Kar was levied at the rate of Rs. 2.25 per month. According to the defendant he had deposited the rent for the aforesaid period under S. 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. (hereinafter refer- red to as the 'Act) on 1-10-1965 per Ext. A-3. The deposit was duly made after the notice of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiffs contention was that as there was no refusal of earlier rent, the deposit under Section 7-C was invalid and the validity of the deposit could be examined in the present suit. The courts below have held the deposit to be invalid and consequently the defendant has been held to be a defaulter and liable to ejectment under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (a) of the said Act. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has raised several questions. His first argument was that there was no proof on record that the subtenancy of the tenant was in accordance with the provisions of the said Act as neither permission of the District Magistrate nor of the landlord was proved. As the sub-tenancy itself was invalid, the plaintiff was not entitled to either ejectment or the damages on the basis of the sub-tenancy. As the sub-tenancy itself was invalid, the plaintiff was not entitled to either ejectment or the damages on the basis of the sub-tenancy. This argument necessarily involves the question of fact. The question of illegality of the sub-tenancy was not raised in the written statement nor any issue was framed on that question. Obviously the question of new facts cannot be permitted to be raised in the second appeal for the first time. 5. The second and main argument of the learned counsel was that the defendant was not defaulter within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the said Act. 'The question again circles round the validity of the deposit made under S. 7-C. The defendant has filed the acknowledgement of the money order signed by the plaintiff. The money order was sent to t.he plaintiff by the defendant prior to his deposit dated 1-10-1965. On the back of the aforesaid acknowledgement receipts (Exts. A-12 and A-13), it is noted by the plaintiff that the amount shall be kept in deposit as being short and disputed. The defendant instead of sending the amount for the disputed (subsequent) period, rushed to the court and deposited the same under Section 7-C. According to the defendant, the endorsement aforesaid amounted to the refusal by the plaintiff. 'To me the dispute appears to have arisen due to the refusal of the defendant to pay the U. P. (Nagar Kshetra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar demanded by the plaintiff. Even in the notice dated 15-12-1965, the Bhumi Bhawan Kar was demanded. 6. The only point to be examined in the present case is whether the demand of the Bhumi Bhawan Kar along with the rent was valid or not and whether the endorsement of the plaintiff on the acknowledgement receipts (Exts. A-12 and A-13) amounted to the refusal of the rent. 7. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of U. P. Nagar (Kshetra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962, the tax was recoverable from the occupier along with the rent or damages for the building. Therefore, the plaintiff was within his rights to demand the Bhumi Bhawan Kar from the defendant along with the rent. However, that did not make the Bhumi Bhawan Kar a part of the rent itself and non-payment of the same could not be treated as a default. 8. Therefore, the plaintiff was within his rights to demand the Bhumi Bhawan Kar from the defendant along with the rent. However, that did not make the Bhumi Bhawan Kar a part of the rent itself and non-payment of the same could not be treated as a default. 8. It has also to be borne in mind that the plaintiff was within his rights to insist upon the payment of Bhumi Kar not paid with the rent. As the Bhumi Bhawan Kar was not paid with the rent, the plaintiff was justified in making a note on the money order acknowledgements that the amount was short. However, the plaintiff did not refuse the rent tendered. He accepted the rent sent to him but did not give discharge for the entire amount as, according to him, some more amount was payable as Bhumi Bhawan Kar. Even if the plaintiff did not give a clear discharge to the defendant, in respect of even the rent, he accepted the money and did not refuse. According to the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. II)." 'refusal means the act of refusing denial of something demanded or offered. Obviously, the rent was accepted but not unconditionally. The amount sent was also short of the amount payable under the Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that as the plaintiff did not give any clear discharge to the defendant for the rent, it amounted to refusal. According to him, as no clear discharge was given to him for the rent already paid to the plaintiff by the money order, he was within his right to deposit the future rent under S. 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent. on the other hand, argued that Section 7-C contemplates the deposit of the refused rent first subsequently, the deposit of rent in future. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent. on the other hand, argued that Section 7-C contemplates the deposit of the refused rent first subsequently, the deposit of rent in future. Sub-section (1) of Section 7-C reads as under- "When a landlord refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant in respect of any accommodation the tenant may in the prescribed manner deposit such rent and continue to deposit any subsequent rent which becomes due in respect of such accommodation unless the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to tenant his willingness to accept." A reading of the section makes it clear that aright to deposit the rent under the aforesaid section arises only if the landlord has refused to accept any rent lawfully paid. In the instant case, the plaintiff had accepted the money but did not give any receipt for rent as, according to him, the amount was not full. If the disputed amount is accepted as disputed amount or subject to protest, that does not amount to refusal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a Supreme Court case reported in 1977 All Ren C 363; Dr. Brahmanand v. Smt. Kaushlya Devi. In that case, the rent was not tendered to the landlord and it was deposited under Section 7-C directly. It was proved that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant were highly strained and even if the rent was paid or tendered, the landlord was bound to refuse. There were criminal and civil litigation's going on between the landlord and the tenant. On the facts of that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the tender was not necessary before the rent being deposited under Section 7-C. In the instant case, there is no such thing. The rent has been accepted. Only the amount being disputed, the landlord did not admit the same as due payment of rent. Under the circumstances, there could be no justification whatsoever for the tenant to run to court, deposit the rent under Section 7-C and compel the landlord as well, to withdraw the rent from the court, after incurring unnecessary expenses. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant cited Indian Quarter Masters Union v. P. R. Dutt reported in AIR 1951 Cal 570 . 12. The learned counsel for the appellant cited Indian Quarter Masters Union v. P. R. Dutt reported in AIR 1951 Cal 570 . In that case word 'refusal was sought to be interpreted in the sense that the petition under Article 226 could not be maintainable unless the petitioner had demanded justice and was refused. In that case it was held that the petitioner made the protest to the respondent and urged him to adopt the proper procedure but the only effect was the displeasure of the officials and harassment at their hands. Under these circumstances the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the allegations were sufficient to prove that the justice was refused by the respondent. The instant case is quite distinct on facts. The learned, counsel also urged that the conduct of the plaintiff amounted to refusal of the rent. As have already discussed above the-landlord was entitled to demand the Bhumi Bhawan Kar along with the rent and under the circumstances if he did not give full discharge for the payment, he could not be said to have been acting in a mala fide manner. 13. The demand of the landlord for the Bhumi Bhawan Kar as well along, with the rent could not be held to be wholly unjustified. 14. The other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that it was not necessary to deposit the amount actually refused and subsequent deposits could be made. Counsel for the respondent on the other side could not cite any case on question. Section 7-C quoted above-shows that this section authorises the tenant to deposit the amount L e. the rent refused. Thereafter the section says continue to deposit subsequent rent.1 Therefore the subsequent rent only can by deposited in continuation of the rent already deposited. In my opinion a deposit of subsequent, rent could only be the continuation of. the previous deposit of 'refused rent, Deposit of subsequent rent alone could not be authorised by S. 7-C (l) of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The rent that has been refused has to be initially deposited to get a right to continue to deposit subsequent rent. 15. I, therefore, find that the deposit made by the defendant appellant under Section 7-C(l) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not valid. The rent that has been refused has to be initially deposited to get a right to continue to deposit subsequent rent. 15. I, therefore, find that the deposit made by the defendant appellant under Section 7-C(l) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not valid. As the rent had not been paid in compliance of the notice dated 15-12-1965, the defendant did commit a default and was liable to ejectment. 16. Another question was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate court has granted a set off for Rs. 35.47 against the plaintiff. He argued that admittedly four months' rent was due and as the amount of rent of four months, reduced by Rs. 35.00 could not amount to four months rent, there was no default. He relied upon a case reported in 1960 All LJ 211 (DB), Jitendra Prasad v. Mathura Pd. Darji, In that case, it was held that in case of monthly tenancy as the rent falls due after the expiry of month (more than three months rent, as contemplated by Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, would mean four months rent. Learned counsel argued that on the date of the suit, four months rent was not due and, therefore. the notice was invalid. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the defendants counterclaim for Rs. 67.82 in the written statement. The defendant claimed that amount to be set-off towards the Bhumi Bhawan Kar and not towards the rent. 18. However, we need not go into that question. Admittedly, three months rent plus about Rs. 10/- of the rent of the fourth month after deducting Rs. 35/- as decreed by the court below remained due. The three months rent, balance of Rs. 10/-of the fourth months rent, which had already fallen due, in my opinion was more than three months rent as required by Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act mentioned above. This point also fails. Consequently, the appeal of the defendant-appellant is liable to be dismissed. 19. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court is confirmed. However, disputed premises are business premises and, therefore, it will be expedient to allow the defendant some time to make an alternative arrangement. This point also fails. Consequently, the appeal of the defendant-appellant is liable to be dismissed. 19. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court is confirmed. However, disputed premises are business premises and, therefore, it will be expedient to allow the defendant some time to make an alternative arrangement. I, therefore, order that the defendant will be entitled to ejectment after a period of six months from today provided he pays the entire dues including damages, etc. within one month from today in the court below. Any amount already deposited by him will be liable to be adjusted. In case of default in payment as directed above he will be liable to ejectment after one month from today. He is further directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff within six months from today. He will also pay the costs of the present appeal to the plaintiff respondent.