JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. - This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit filed against him for ejectment from the shop in dispute. 2. Admittedly the defendant was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The shop is alleged to have been constructed in the year 1960-61 and as such the U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 did not apply to it. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment after serving the notice of termination of tenancy dated 24-10-1965 which was served on the defendant on 18-11-1965. The rent was claimed from 10-10-1965 onwards. Various pleas were raised but ultimately the only point that remained for decision by the trial court was as to whether the defendant was entitled to claim the benefit of Section 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. The trial court, after taking into account various deposits made by the defendant from time to time and the claim of the plaintiff for rent, interest and cost, came to the conclusion that the defendant had not committed default in the payment of rent. Aggrieved against this decision the plaintiff went up in appeal and the Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad, who, disagreeing with the learned Munsif, decreed the plaintiffs suit on the finding that the defendant had not deposited the entire amount required under Section 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The defendant has thus come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. The only point which has been raised before this Court is regarding the amounts which are to be kept into consideration for the purpose of calculating the claim of the plaintiff and the amounts which the defendant has deposited in accordance with Section 39 of the Act. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is manifold and may be summarised as under: 1. Whether the rent is due from the 1st of each month or from 10th to 10th. 2. Whether the amount is to be calculated up to 15-7-1972 or up to the date of the deposit i. e. 10-8-1972. 3. What is the amount of the costs of the suit. It is admitted that the defendant had deposited Rs. 840/- on 18-4-1969 and a sum of Rs. 3589.58 was deposited on 10-8-1972. 2. Whether the amount is to be calculated up to 15-7-1972 or up to the date of the deposit i. e. 10-8-1972. 3. What is the amount of the costs of the suit. It is admitted that the defendant had deposited Rs. 840/- on 18-4-1969 and a sum of Rs. 3589.58 was deposited on 10-8-1972. In this manner the total deposits made by the defendant up to 10-8-1972 amounted to Rs. 4429.58. About this amount there is no dispute. In fact the main dispute is about the amounts which are due to the plaintiff from the defendants appellants. The amount of rent is due from 10-10-1965. Therefore, the first months rent i. e. from 10-10-1965 to 9-11-1965 will fall due for payment to the plaintiff on 10-11-1965 when the rent becomes payable and then only the interest at the rate of 9 per cent will start on them. The sum of Rs. 840/- having been paid on 18-4-1969 will wipe out the arrears up to 10-7-1967. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that on the date when the Act came into force the only amount due from the defendant was Rs. 2440/- i. e. rent for five years and one month and therefore, interest should be calculated only on this amount. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that on the date when the Act came into force the only amount due from the defendant was Rs. 2440/- i. e. rent for five years and one month and therefore, interest should be calculated only on this amount. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants it is necessary to peruse Section 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which is as under: "In a suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act did not apply, pending on the date of commencement of this Act, where the tenant within one month from such date of commencement or from the date of his knowledge of the pendency of the suit, whichever be later, deposits in the court before which the suit is pending, the entire, amount of rent and damages for use and occupation (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent, per annum and the landlord's full costs of the suit, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) or in clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, and the parties shall be entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where: necessary: Provided that a tenant the rent payable by whom does not exceed twenty-five; rupees per month need not deposit any interest as aforesaid". 6. The Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is an Act which imposes restrictions on the rights of the landlord and certain protections have been provided for the tenants under this Act against eviction and control of rent. Since the old Act i. e. U. P. Act III of 1947 was not applicable to such buildings as were constructed on or after 1-1-1951 the tenants occupying these accommodations were left at the mercy of the landlords, when the new Act No. 13 of 1972 was enacted a necessity was felt that such unprotected tenants should also be given statutory protection under the Act. Therefore, taking a clue from the principles underlying the provision of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act a provision similar to that in effect was provided in the form of Section 39 in order to provide protection to the tenants against whom suits for eviction were pending and who had till then no protection under the previous Rent Control Act of 1947. From its very nature, therefore, the provisions of Section 39 are not restrictive but are in the nature of a concession or protection to the tenant. The policy underlying Section 39 of the Act appears to be that the landlord, who had been pursuing his remedy against a tenant in accordance with the then prevailing laws, should not be put in a worse position on account of the enforcement of the new Rent Control Act. Therefore, an effort is made to place the plaintiff in the same position as he would have occupied if no suit had been filed and 9 per cent, interest on the arrears of rent have been awarded to him by way of solatium because the rent which otherwise could have come to him each month but due to the suit had remained blocked up and he could not take any benefit of the money due to the litigation which he may not have started if the law at that time did not permit him to do so. 7. That being the policy underlying Section 39 of the Act, it appears that the interpretation of Section 39 has to be made in a manner which may subserve that purpose. The requirement of Section 30 is that "a tenant within one month from such date of commencement ........... deposits in the court before which the suit is pending, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation together with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlords full costs of the suit ......." In order to seek benefit under Section 39 of the Act two tilings are essential. Firstly, the tenant must deposit the amounts which are mentioned in the notice and, secondly, this entire amount should be deposited, within one month from the commencement of the Act i. e. in the instant case, by 15th August 1972. Firstly, the tenant must deposit the amounts which are mentioned in the notice and, secondly, this entire amount should be deposited, within one month from the commencement of the Act i. e. in the instant case, by 15th August 1972. The word months in the Act, to my mind, does not apply to-the amounts which are to be deposited but it has a reference only to the period within which the concession granted under Sec. 39 could be availed of by the tenant. If the tenant deposits the entire amount, on the date of the enforcement of the Act the amount as due on that date has to be deposited but if he waits until the last date, i. e., up to 15th August, 1972 then, he would be required to deposit the amount which may then be due from him in accordance with Section 39 of the Act. 8. Reading the meaning of Section 39 in the aforesaid manner we have to examine as. to on what amount the interest of 9 percent is to be paid. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was-that this interest was to be calculated only on such amount as was actually in arrears-on the date when the deposit was made and since in this case Rs. 840/- had already-been deposited by him on 18-4-1969, therefore, the interest will be payable only on such amount which was due from 10-7-1967, i. e., the date up to which the rent will be deemed to have been paid on the deposit of Rs. 840/- being made. The argument of the other side, however, was that this sum of Rs. 840/- may have been deposited by the defendant in the court, yet this is not equivalent to the payment to the plaintiff. The amount will remain, due so far as the plaintiff is concerned.. Apart from this the word due has not been used in Section 39 and it is said that the words "entire amount of rent and damages etc." mean the rent as claimed by the-plaintiff in the suit. The argument, therefore, proceeds that the whole amount which was due right from 10-10-1965 onwards, being due from the defendant, interest should be payable on all that amount. The argument, therefore, proceeds that the whole amount which was due right from 10-10-1965 onwards, being due from the defendant, interest should be payable on all that amount. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent appears to be too widely stated and is likely to create several problems for a tenant who has genuinely either deposited the amount under the provisions of Section 7-C' of the old Act or under any other provision or might have been compelled to-deposit the amount under the orders of the court. The amounts if so deposited cannot be said to be amounts which are due from the tenant and as such it would-be unfair and inequitable to expect a tenant to deposit any such amount over again in order to claim the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. To my mind, only those amounts which have not been deposited either under any statutory provision entitling the tenant to deposit such amount or under the direction of the court would be required to be deposited by him if he seeks the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellants was not able to explain as to under whose orders and under what circumstances a sum of Rupees 840/- was deposited on 18-4-1969. If this deposit was neither under the orders of the court nor under any statutory direction then this amount cannot be treated as an amount paid to the landlord. In such circumstances naturally the tenant was required to deposit interest at the rate of 9 per cent on this amount also under Section 39 of the Act. If the interest on the rent in arrears is calculated from 10-10-1965 till 10-8-1972 the total interest @ 9 per cent would come to Rs. 756-30. But if the interest is calculated only from 10-7-1967 up to which rent stood paid after payment in the court of Rs. 840/- by the defendant, then the amount of interest as per plaintiffs statement of calculation comes to Rs. 560-70 and as per defendants calculation it comes to Rs. 533-70 i. e. Rs. 27-50 less. 9. The next question which was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was the period for which the rent was to be deposited. 840/- by the defendant, then the amount of interest as per plaintiffs statement of calculation comes to Rs. 560-70 and as per defendants calculation it comes to Rs. 533-70 i. e. Rs. 27-50 less. 9. The next question which was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was the period for which the rent was to be deposited. According to his submission he was only required to deposit the amount as due on 15-7-1972 when the new Act came into force and became applicable to the accommodation in suit. According to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent the rent has to be paid up to the date of deposit i. e. 10-8-72 and interest also is. to be calculated right up to that date i. e. 10-8-1972. As already observed above the provision of Section 39 is a benefactory provision and the advantage of it can be taken by the tenant only and, therefore, he has strictly to comply with the conditions which may be least disadvantageous to the landlord. As such these provisions of the Act should be interpreted liberally in favour of those parties against whom the benefit was being given. 10. Apart from this, when amount of costs are to be calculated the entire expenses legally taxable up to the date of deposit are taken into account on the same analogy the amount due as on the date of deposit has to be deposited in Court. The amount of rent, therefore, has to be calculated right from 10-10-1965 to 10th August 1972 and the interest payable on such amount has also to be calculated up to 10th August 1972. This amount of rent from 10-10-1965 to 10-8-1972 comes to Rs. 3280/- out of which Rs. 840/- had been deposited on 18-4-1969. 11. The last argument advanced on behalf of the appellants was in respect of the various items of the costs to which the plaintiff would be entitled. It is said that taxable costs were courts fee, advocates fee and other expenditures incurred by the plaintiff up to 10th August 1972. He conceded that the amount of Rs. 300/- spent on the expert have been rightly divided into two parts, Rs. 150/-for the report of the expert and Rs. 150/- for his evidence and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 150/- spent on expert before the aforesaid dale was rightly taxed. He conceded that the amount of Rs. 300/- spent on the expert have been rightly divided into two parts, Rs. 150/-for the report of the expert and Rs. 150/- for his evidence and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 150/- spent on expert before the aforesaid dale was rightly taxed. It is: then said that Rs. 125/- have been awarded as the adjournment cost. This amount also is conceded and has to be added in the costs. Apart from this, Rs. 60/- were-spent on expert commission and this amount also has to be added in the taxing of the costs. The parties counsel have prepared a chart of the claims and there is a great diversion in the amount of costs to be taxed. However, taking the figures given by the learned counsel for appellants, it appears that the total costs amount to Rs. 633-40 which are made up as follows: 1. Court-fee and advocates fee etc. Rs. 298.40' 2. Unpaid adjournment cost Rs. 125.00 3 Expert commission fee Rs. 60.00 4. Expert fee. Rs. 150.00 Total Rs. 633.40" Thus the total amount due from the defendant is as under: 1. Rent from 10-10-1965 to 10-8-1972 less Rs. 840/-already deposited Rs. 2440.00 2. Interest on the amount of the arrears of rent. Rs. 560.70 3. Amount of the costs of the suit Rs. 633.40 Total amount required to be deposited by the appellants. Rs. 3634.10 Less amount actually deposited Rs. 3589.58 Rs. 44.52 12. In this manner it would he found that the total deposit made by the tenant to get the benefit of Section 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 falls short of the amount due by Rs. 44.52 and as such the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit claimed by them. Even if it be taken that defendants calculation regarding amount of interest is incorrect the amount deposited will still be short of the required amount by Rs. 44.52 minus Rs. 27.50 i. e. by Rs. 17.02 It may be stated that in calculating the interest of Rs. 560.70 the interest up to 18th July 1969 when Rs. 840 were deposited by the defendant has not been taken into account. If that period is also taken into account for purposes of calculating the interest then a further sum of Rs. 195.30 would be added to the amount of default. 560.70 the interest up to 18th July 1969 when Rs. 840 were deposited by the defendant has not been taken into account. If that period is also taken into account for purposes of calculating the interest then a further sum of Rs. 195.30 would be added to the amount of default. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that the defendant-appellants have not complied with the conditions under Section 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such the benefit of the same cannot be claimed by them. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The defendant-appellants, however are directed to vacate the premises in dispute within three months from todays date after which the plaintiff-respondent would be entitled to execute his decree in accordance with law.