ORDER A. N. Varma, J. -This is a petition, which is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge allowing a Revision and decreeina a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff-respondent who are arrayed as respondents Nos. 3 to 8. 2. Shortly stated, the plaint case was that the petitioner was the tenant of the accommodation in suit of which the said respondents were landlords. The petitioner fell in arrears of rent from 1-11-71 to 31-3-72. A notice for ejectment and demand was, therefore, served upon the petitioner. The petitioner neither paid the arrears of rent, nor vacated the premises. Hence the suit. 3. The defence was that the petitioner was not in arrears of rent. The petitioner had been remitting the rent through money orders which the landlord had been persistently refusing. Thereupon, the petitioner was constrained to make an application under Section 7-C of U. P. Act No. Ill of 1947 for the deposit of the rent due under Section 7-C. The learned Munsif having Jurisdiction passed an order on 18-3-72. in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1972 allowing the petitioner to make the deposit under Section 7-C of the Act. The petitioner was, therefore, not in arrears of rent and was not liable to be evicted. 4. The suit was filed on 4-9-1973. The first date of hearing in the suit was 1-12-1973. Before that date, the petitioner made a deposit of Rs. 550/-, purporting to cover the entire arrears of rent, costs and interest required to be deposited under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 5. The trial court held that the defendant was not in arrears of rent. It further held that the deposits under Section 7-C of U. P. Act No. Ill of 1947, made by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 18-3-1972, passed in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1972, were valid. Taking into account the deposits made by the petitioner under Section 7-C of 1947 Act, the trial court held that the defendant was not in arrears of rent and dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the landlord filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which has been allowed by the order dated 20.5.1976, which is the subject of challenge in this writ petition. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the landlord filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which has been allowed by the order dated 20.5.1976, which is the subject of challenge in this writ petition. 7. Counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the learned District Judge committed a patent illegality in striking off the defence of the petitioner at the revisional stage. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power to strike off the defence could be exercised only during the pendency of the suit in the court of the first instance. 8. Learned counsel next submitted that in any case, the view of the learned District Judge that the deposits made by the petitioner under Section 7-C of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1947 could not be taken into account, is manifestly erroneous in law. Learned Counsel contended that if this deposit is taken into account, it would be clear that the petitioner has complied with Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. That being so, counsel contended, the suit of the respondent for eviction was liable to be dismissed. The learned Dist. Judge committed a patent error of law in decreeing the suit. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that this petition should be allowed and suit of the plaintiff-respondent for the ejectment of petitioner dismissed. 10. In the view that I am taking on the second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the first point submitted by him. As regards the second point, the facts found by the courts below are as follows: 11. The rate of rent at which the petitioner was required to make the deposit under Section 20 (4) of 1972 Act has found to be Rs. 15/- per month. The arrears of rent have been claimed from 1-11-1971. The first date of hearing was 1-12-1973. This period covers 25 months, The petitioner made a deposit of Rupees 550/- in court on 28-11-78. Out of this amount sum of Rs. 345/- was stated to be due on account of arrears of rent. This amount of Rs. 345/- covers the rent of only 23 months as observed by the learned District Judge. This period covers 25 months, The petitioner made a deposit of Rupees 550/- in court on 28-11-78. Out of this amount sum of Rs. 345/- was stated to be due on account of arrears of rent. This amount of Rs. 345/- covers the rent of only 23 months as observed by the learned District Judge. The petitioner, however, claimed in the suit that inasmuch as he had made the deposits under Section 7-C of 1947 Act under an order of the court dated -18-3-1972, he could not be held to have been in arrears of rent for the period for which he had made the deposits under Section 1-C. The learned District Judge has taken the view that the deposit made under Section 7-C cannot be taken into account while considering the question whether there has been a due compliance with Section 20 (4) of 1972 Act. I do not agree with this view. Section 20 (4) of 1972, Act reads as follows:- "In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-sec. if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him, 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 landlords costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground; Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area:- Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section - (a) the expression 'first hearing means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; (b) the expression 'costs of the suit includes one half of the amount of counsels fee taxable for a contested suit." 12. The aforesaid provision required the tenant, if he desires to save his eviction, to pay or to tender to the landlord or deposit in Court the entire rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him. Section 7-C of Act No. III of 1947, so far it is relevant for our purposes is as under:- "7-C (1). When a landlord refuses to accept any rent 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 i to the tenant his willingness to accept. (6). In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord." Section 7-C (6) makes it abundantly clear that if a tenant makes a lawful deposit under Section 7-C (1), it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord. The legal consequence of a deposit under Section 7-C (1) of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 is that the tenant shall not be regarded as in arrears of rent for the period for which he makes a deposit under Section 7-C (1) of 1947 Act. If under the statutory provision applicable at the time of making the deposit the tenant could not be regarded as having been in arrears, it is obvious that the amount of rent so deposited cannot be said to be due from the tenant within the meaning of sub-sec. (4) of Section 20 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged, relying on the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of 1972 Act, that it is the only deposit made under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 that could be deducted in computing the amount required to be deposited under Section 20 (4) of 1972 Act. I do not agree with this submission. I do not agree with this submission. The mere fact that under sub-section (4) of Section 20, there is an express provision for deduction under sub-section 30 (1) of 1972 Act, cannot, in my view, lead to the inference that any deposits lawfully made under some other statutory provision, cannot be taken into account in determining the amount required to be deposited under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of 1972 Act. In my judgment all such sums of money which the tenant is required or permitted by or under a statute to deposit in any court or with any authority towards arrears of rent can be taken into consideration on proof of the fact that the deposits were lawfully made. Where, therefore, the tenant proves that he has made deposits under Section 7-C of 1947 Act, in my view, he ought to be held entitled to deduct that amount. For, the amount deposited by the tenant under Section 7-C of 1947 Act, cannot be regarded as the amount of rent, due from the tenant within the meaning of Section 20 (4). 14. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that inasmuch as the defence of the petitioner has been struck off by the learned District Judge, the fact that the petitioner made any deposit under Section 7-C could not be looked into. I cannot agree. For determining the question whether there has been compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the Court can take into account all such deposits which the tenant makes either in the Court where the suit might be pending or even else-where under some statutory provisions particularly where the statutory provision provides that deposit made under that statute shall have the effect of payment of rent to the landlord. Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is concerned with the deposits made by the defendant, and for ascertaining what amounts have been deposited by the defendant, it is not necessary for the Court to advert to the defence of the petitioner in the present case. 15. In view of what has been stated above, I am clearly of the opinion that the learned District Judge fell into a manifest error of law in taking the view that the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 7-C of 1947 Act could not be considered. 15. In view of what has been stated above, I am clearly of the opinion that the learned District Judge fell into a manifest error of law in taking the view that the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 7-C of 1947 Act could not be considered. The trial Court had taken this deposit into consideration and held that the petitioner had fully complied with the provisions of Section 20 (4) of 1972 Act. Indeed learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that if the deposits under Section 7-C of 1947 Act are taken into account, the provisions of Section 20 (4) of 1972 Act shall have been fully complied with. The learned District Judge has thus committed a patent illegality in decreeing the suit for ejectment. 16. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ghazipur dated 20-5-1976 are quashed. The suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the petitioner is dismissed. The plaintiff-respondents suit for recovery of rent and damages as claimed in the suit at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month is, however, decreed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition.