JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal. 2. It is undisputed that defendant-respondent Ganeshi Lal was a tenant of a shop which stood on land of which the plaintiff had a lease expiring on September 30, 1964. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month in respect of this shop for a long period since September 1, 1964. The plaintiff gave a notice of demand, together with that terminating the defendant's tenancy, which was served on the defendant on June 26, 1967. The defendant did not pay the amount of rent in arrears to him nor did he vacate the shop. Hence, the suit for the defendant's ejectment and for recovery from him of the amount due as arrears. 3. The defendant took the plea that he was not in default for he had deposited the amount of rent for the aforesaid period (between 1-9-1964 and 30-6-1967) under Section 7-C of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 (hereinafter, for brevity "the Act"). He had to do so because there was doubt as to whether the plaintiff or the Receiver appointed by the Court in respect of the property in suit, which was subject matter of litigation before it, was entitled to receive the amount of rent. The plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to the decree claimed. 4. The trial Court, under Issue No, 2 framed by it on the pleading of the parties, and which was "whether the defendant committed default in payment of rent or is he saved by his depositing it in court under Section 7-C proceedings?", found that the defendant had definitely proved that rent was demanded from him also by the court Receiver and that there was "bona fide doubt as to the person who was entitled to receive rent." The court also found that the defendant could, in the circumstances, deposit the amount of rent under Section 7-C (2) of the Act. It also found that the amount of rent in arrears had actually been deposited by the defendant in the Court Munsif. However, according to the trial Court, the rent was not deposited under the head under which it should have been deposited as per the requirement of R. 9 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Rules, 1949. It also found that the amount of rent in arrears had actually been deposited by the defendant in the Court Munsif. However, according to the trial Court, the rent was not deposited under the head under which it should have been deposited as per the requirement of R. 9 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Rules, 1949. In the words of the trial Court, "the only fault of the poor man,: (the defendant) is that he has failed to, deposit the rent under a proper head as prescribed by Rule 9. The defendant is to suffer irreparable loss for this tria1 matter. But I cannot help the same for we are to implement the will of the Legislature". The Court, upon its view aforesaid held that the deposit made by the defendant was not a valid deposit so as to make it available to him for purposes of sub-section (6) of Section 7-C of the Act as being rent "duly paid to the landlord." The defendant was held to be a defaulter by the trial Court and a decree, as prayed by the plaintiff was passed by it. 5. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant. The lower appellate Court, on reappraisal of evidence on record, affirmed the view of the trial Court that in the circumstances of the case, the defendant could make a deposit of the amount of rent under Section 7-C (2) of the Act. It also affirmed the conclusion that the defendant had, in fact, applied to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction in the matter for obtaining an, order for the deposit of the amount from him. Further that he had made the deposit in that court. However, in the opinion, of the lower appellate Court, the view of the trial Court that the deposit was invalid as it had not been made under the. proper head in terms of Rule 9 was erroneous and too technical. The lower appellate Court held that the deposit could' be treated to be a valid one. In its opinion, the defendant could not be held to, be a defaulter nor could, therefore, a decree for his ejectment be passed it, therefore, dismissed the suit for that relief. The plaintiff has now approached' this court in the present appeal. 6. The lower appellate Court held that the deposit could' be treated to be a valid one. In its opinion, the defendant could not be held to, be a defaulter nor could, therefore, a decree for his ejectment be passed it, therefore, dismissed the suit for that relief. The plaintiff has now approached' this court in the present appeal. 6. It has been urged before me on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the view that the defendant was justified its making the deposit of the amount of rent under Section 7-C of the Act was incorrect. So also was the view taken by the lower appellate Court that the amount deposited by the defendant, though not under the head under which it should have been, deposited was to enure to the benefit of the defendant. It has been submitted that the order of ejectment was rightly passed by the trial court. 7. On the facts found by both the courts below, namely, that apart from the plaintiff-appellant, rent was being demanded from the defendant by the Receiver appointed by the court in respect of the property in suit in some pending litigation, it is obvious that the view taken by them that the defendant could entertain a bona fide doubt about the person who was entitled to receive the rent for the premises in suit is plainly correct. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the first submission of the learned counsel has no merit. 8. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the amount of rent can be deposited by a tenant under Section 7-C of the Act only "in the prescribed manner" which requires him to deposit it under the head mentioned in Rule 9 of the Rules. As such, any deposit not made under that head could not be characterised as a deposit made "in the prescribed manner" and the tenant could not be held to have made the deposit at all. As such, the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 7-C would not come into play:- Section 7-C of the Act read thus:- "7-C (1). As such, any deposit not made under that head could not be characterised as a deposit made "in the prescribed manner" and the tenant could not be held to have made the deposit at all. As such, the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 7-C would not come into play:- Section 7-C of the Act read thus:- "7-C (1). When a landlord refuses 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 the tenant his willingness to accept. (2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may similarly deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent Court, or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit, in like manner, the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building. (3) The deposit referred to in sub-section (1) or (2) shall be made in the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. (4) On any deposit being made under sub-section (1) the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in this behalf. (5) When a deposit has been made under sub-section (2) the amount of the deposit shall be held by the Court for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the same shall be payable to such person. (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." 9. A perusal of this section would show that under sub-section (3), the deposit is to be made in the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. A perusal of this section would show that under sub-section (3), the deposit is to be made in the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. This admittedly, was done in the instant case.) The manner which has been prescribed) for the deposit of the amount under Section 7-C, obviously relates to the procedure, to be adapted in making a deposit. The procedure. in substance, is that an application is to be made to the Court in the form given in Appendix A of the Rules where after a notice is to be issued by, the court in the Form as in) Appendix B thereto. It has been found by the lower appellate Court that an application (Ext. A-I) was made by the defendant on July 3, 1967 for the purpose and an order (Ext. A-2) was passed by the court on July 22, 1967 as required by the rules. The substantive provisions of Section 7-C require the deposit to be made in the court of Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. If the deposit is made in the appropriate court, it is clear that the requirement of the substantive provision of law is fully satisfied. It is settled that rules of procedure are handmaids for advancing the cause of justice. They cannot be utilised to defeat it. The object of the Act, as is evident from the relevant portion of its preamble, inter alia, was to prevent eviction of tenants from accommodation in the State of which there was shortage. This object, amongst other, has to guide the interpretation of the provisions made by the rule-making authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Act. Insistence upon rigid adherence to a rule like the one for deposit being made under a particular head would clearly negate one of the objects with which the Act was brought on the statute Book. The rules have to be read in a manner so as to subserve the object, of the Act. In this view of the matter, the requirement of the deposit being made under a particular head provided in R. 9 of the Rules has to be held to be directory. The rules have to be read in a manner so as to subserve the object, of the Act. In this view of the matter, the requirement of the deposit being made under a particular head provided in R. 9 of the Rules has to be held to be directory. It cannot, therefore, be held as was done by the trial Court, that the fact that the deposit was not made by the defendant under the appropriate head would lead to the conclusion that no deposit under Section 7-C had been made at all. The lower appellate Court was clearly right in its view that the approach of the trial Court in this respect was too technical, It rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit, in view of the factual findings recorded by both the courts, for the relief of ejectment of the defendant. 10. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed but, without any orders as to costs.