ORDER V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by Murari Lal who is tenant of premises No. 28/37. Kashmiri Bazar, Agra. 2. On March 28, 1972, the landlords who are opposite parties before me filed an application under Sec. 7-B of U. P. Act No. III of 1947. A notice issued by the Munsif before whom the said application was moved was served on the applicant on Sept. 29, 1972. This notice required the applicant to deposit the amount claimed by the landlord as rent in arrears within a period of 15 days of the service of notice. It did not call upon the applicant to show cause within the said period of 15 days as to why an order directing him to be evicted from the accommodation be not passed against him. 3. On Oct. 28, 1972, the applicant filed an objection and simultaneously furnished security for the sum of Rs. 200/ - which he was required to deposit by the notice aforesaid. This security was verified the same day before the court. Notwithstanding the filing of the objection and the security as aforesaid, the Munsif passed an order on Nov. 11, 1972 directing the ejectment of the applicant from the premises in question. In doing so, the learned Munsif upheld the objection taken on behalf of the landlords that the security not having been furnished within a period of 15 days of the date of service of notice upon the applicant, could not be treated to have been validly so furnished and on that account the objection could not be entertained. The applicant challenged the order in a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. before the District Judge, Agra who, however, refused to interfere with it on his view that the security had to be furnished within 15 days as held by the Munsif. Hence, the present revision. 4. The applicant challenged the order in a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. before the District Judge, Agra who, however, refused to interfere with it on his view that the security had to be furnished within 15 days as held by the Munsif. Hence, the present revision. 4. Sub-section (7) of Section 7-B of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 read thus: "If the tenant appears in reply to the notice under sub-section (3) and files an objection, other than an objection as to costs of these proceedings, the Munsif shall inform the applicant that he may, subject to the payment of court-fee within such time, as may be specified, have the application treated as a plaint in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent alone: Provided that the tenant shall not be permitted to file any objections, unless he has deposited in the court the amount mentioned in the notice or furnishes security to the satisfaction of the court." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the only requirement thereof was that the tenant was not to be permitted to file an objection unless he had deposited in court the amount mentioned in the notice or furnishedj security to the satisfaction of the court. It did not lay down that the security had to be furnished within a period of 15 days from the date of service of notice upon him under sub-section (3) of Section 7-B be 4 fore he could file the objection under sub-section (7). Quite clearly, therefore, the learned Munsif could not direct the eviction of the applicant from the premises in suit without considering the objection filed by the applicant on its merits. Since he proceeded to do so on an erroneous view that the applicant was required to furnish security within a period of 15 days, his order must be set aside. So also the order passed by the learned District Judge in revision. 6. In the result, the applicant in revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of eviction passed by the learned Munsif is set aside and he is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Since no one has appeared to oppose the present revision, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.