JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. This is a defendant-tenant's revision. At the hearing of this revision before a learned Single Judge it was submitted on behalf of the tenant-applicant that the deposit made by him under Section 20 (4) of the Rent Control Act of 1972 was an unconditional deposit. The court below erred in law in holding to the contrary. The learned Single Judge found some inconsistency between two single Judge decisions of this Court, namely, Ram Kishan v. The District Judge, 1976 AWC 763 and Laxmi Narain Sharma v. Arjun Deo Dhawan, 1981 ARC 672 on the nature of the deposit being conditional or unconditional. He hence referred this case to a Division Bench. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party sued for the ejectment of the tenant applicant. She alleged that the defendant was a tenant of a portion of the accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 360/-. He had not paid the rent ever since August 1, 1972. The suit was filed on August 6, 1973 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. In defence it was pleaded that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 125/- only and that the defendant was the tenant of a larger portion than acknowledged by the plaintiff in the plaint. Many other pleas were taken which are not material or relevant for our purposes. 3. The trial court found that the defendant was the tenant of the portion of the accommodation as claimed by the plaintiff and that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 360/-per month, as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant-tenant had not paid rent since August 1, 1972. Rent was hence due payable from that date at Rs. 360/- per month. 4. The defendant had, at the first hearing of the suit, deposited the amount of rent and damages etc. as provided by Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Rent Control Act of 1972. The deposit was made at the rate of Rs. 360/-per month. The first hearing of the suit on which the deposit was made was October 30, 1973. Few months later, on January 1, 1974 the defendant filed a written statement to contest the suit in which he took the plea that the rate of rent was not Rs. 360/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff, but Rs. 125/- per month. The first hearing of the suit on which the deposit was made was October 30, 1973. Few months later, on January 1, 1974 the defendant filed a written statement to contest the suit in which he took the plea that the rate of rent was not Rs. 360/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff, but Rs. 125/- per month. It does not appear that the tenant denied non-payment of rent from August 1, 1972. The Court found that the defendant had, at the first hearing, deposited in court the entire amount due (taking the rate of Rs. 360/- per month), but the deposit was conditional because the defendant had pleaded that the agreed rent was Rs. 125/- per month only. Section 20 (4) required that the deposit of the amount due should be unconditional. Hence the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) by being relieved of his liability to ejectment. In this view, the suit for ejectment was decreed. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant submitted that pleading that the agreed rate of rent was different than that alleged by the plaintiff, is neither material nor relevant to adjudge if the deposit was unconditional. In such a situation, the deposit may amount to a deposit under protest, but it does not in law became a conditional deposit. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord argued that by pleading a lower rate of rent the defendant imposed a condition on the deposit that the defendant does not admit his liability to pay in excess of that admitted by him in the pleadings ; the necessary consequence being that any amount deposited in excess of the admitted amount was a deposit with denial of liability. A deposit accompanied by or subjected to a denial of liability is a deposit with a condition imposed on it. 6. In our opinion, the problem as to deposit being conditional or otherwise largely depends upon the statutory provisions. Clause (a) of Section 20 (2) provides for a suit for eviction of a tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of the notice of demand. Clause (a) of Section 20 (2) provides for a suit for eviction of a tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of the notice of demand. Then sub-section (4) of Section 20 provides locus penitential to a defaulting tenant against whom a suit for eviction has been filed on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of Section 20 (2). Under the circumstances mentioned in sub-section (4) and on fulfilment of the requirements stated therein, the court may not pass a decree for eviction of the tenant. Sub-section (4) provides :- "(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2), 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 landlord's 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 purposes of this sub-section (a) the expression 'first hearing' means the first date or any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; (b) the expression 'cost of the suit' includes one-half of the amount of counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit." 7. One of the requirements of sub-section (4) is that the tenant 'unconditionally' pays or tenders or deposits the entire amount due together with interest and costs. 8. Sub-section (6) of Section 20 is material and relevant. One of the requirements of sub-section (4) is that the tenant 'unconditionally' pays or tenders or deposits the entire amount due together with interest and costs. 8. Sub-section (6) of Section 20 is material and relevant. It provides : - "(6) Any amount deposited by the tenant under sub-section (4) or under Rule 5 or Order XV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be paid to the landlord forthwith on his application without prejudice to the parties, pleadings and subject to the ultimate decision in the suits." Clause (a) of section 3 (1) of the Rent Control Act, 1947 was similar to clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of the present Rent Control Act. Interpreting this clause in the 1947 Act, a Division Bench of this Court in Lala Manohar Lal v. L. Bimal Kumar, 1955 AWR 395 held that the amount of arrears of rent mentioned in the notice of demand need not be the exact amount found due on the date of the notice by the court in case the amount is contested on behalf of the defendant. The tenant is called upon to pay the arrears of rent, which, in the first instance, means the amount mentioned in the notice. If the tenant does not admit the correctness of that amount and does not like to pay the full amount, there seems to be no reason why he should not pay at least such amount as he considers to be due. If he makes such a payment he safeguards his position and the fault would be entirely the landlord's if he goes to court seeking eviction of the tenant. He will fail in his suit if the tenant succeeds in satisfying the court that he had paid up the arrears of rent due, even though the demand was for a larger amount. The plaintiff will succeed if the tenant fails to establish that and the plaintiff succeeds in establishing that inspite of what the tenant had paid some amount of arrears of rent still remained due after one month of the service of notice. 9. The legislature must be deemed to have accepted this interpretation because it has re-enacted clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of the Present Act in the same terms. 10. 9. The legislature must be deemed to have accepted this interpretation because it has re-enacted clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of the Present Act in the same terms. 10. In order to defeat a suit for ejectment, it is not necessary for the tenant to comply with the demand of the landlord as mentioned in the notice of demand. If he pays the correct amount which may be found due in case of a dispute, the suit for ejectment will fail. Sub-section (4) of Section 20 gives another occasion to the defendant to save his tenancy. It does not insist that the tenant should pay the amount demanded by the landlord in the suit. It asks the tenant to pay the amount due together with interest and costs. The payment, tender or deposit should be unconditional. An unconditional deposit made under sub-section (4) has to be paid out to the landlord forthwith. The payment of the unconditional deposit is u/sub-sec. (6) without prejudice to the parties' pleadings and further is subject to the ultimate decision in the suit. The clear intent is that if the tenant pays or deposits the amount due a decree for ejectment should not be passed. Sub-section (6) makes it clear that irrespective of the tenant unconditionally depositing the amount due and the same being paid to the landlord the pleadings of the parties remain operative. The suit is liable to go on if the pleadings raise triable issues. The payment has been made subject to the decision, namely, the findings. The payment of the unconditional deposit to the landlord is without prejudice to the parties' pleadings, i. e., the pleadings of both the parties are protected or safeguarded. By receiving payment of the unconditional deposit a landlord does not compromise his pleadings. The payment of the deposit does not imply any admission by the landlord of any part of the tenant's case. The same should be the tenant's fate. The making of the payment, tender or deposit cannot have any impact or effect on the tenant's pleadings. 11. Under sub-section (6) the payment of the unconditional deposit is subject to the decision of the suit. The payment is thus tentative. The landlord cannot finally appropriate the amount paid to him in fulfilment of his claimed rights. The payment does not have the effect of admission of liability by the tenant. 11. Under sub-section (6) the payment of the unconditional deposit is subject to the decision of the suit. The payment is thus tentative. The landlord cannot finally appropriate the amount paid to him in fulfilment of his claimed rights. The payment does not have the effect of admission of liability by the tenant. The rights and liabilities of the parties are to be determined by the court. The payment of the unconditional deposit will be subject to the findings of the court. The fate and the sufficiency of the payment of the unconditional deposit will depend on the decision of the suit. In case of dispute, the findings of the court will determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. 12. If the landlord succeeds in establishing his claim the court will see whether the amount deposited by the tenant was in accordance with the landlord's claim. IF the amount deposited was sufficient, the court will not pass a decree for ejectment. But if it was insufficient, sub-section (4) of Section 20 will be of no avail to the tenant not because it was conditional but on the ground that the deposit was insufficient and not of the entire amount due. On the other hand, if the tenant succeeds in establishing his case, the court will equally see whether the deposit made by him at the first hearing was correct, in accordance with the findings. The fact that the landlord had made an exaggerated claim will not help him in getting a decree for ejectment. The submission that the deposit to be unconditional must be in acknowledgment of liability as claimed by the landlord will render sub-section (6) superfluous and otiose. 13. Under the law of Contract, making payment or tender after stating the accounts or under protest is no more than saying that the payment is offered as believed to be due by the person making the payment or reserving the right of contesting the justice of the claim without prejudice to the making of the payment. In all such cases the person who makes the payment does not impose any condition on payment. The payment is unconditional. In all such cases the person who makes the payment does not impose any condition on payment. The payment is unconditional. In such cases the creditor can take the payment on that footing and say, "I take the money, protest as much as you please," and neither party makes any admission of the claim in the other-Scott v. Uxbridge and Rickmansworth R. Co., (1966) Law Reports 1 C. P. 596 at 599. A person making a tender has a right to exclude presumptions against himself by saying, "I pay it as a whole that is due". But if he requires the other party to accept it as all that is due, that is imposing a condition,-(i) Rowen v. Owen, (1847) 11 QB 130 at 136, (ii) Sati Prosad v. Manmotha Nath, (1913) 18 Calcutta Weekly Notes 84 : (iii) Bank of Mysore v. B. D. Naidu, (1954) AIR Mysore 168. 14. In our opinion, the term 'unconditional' has been used in Section 20 (4) in a similar sense. If a tenant makes a deposit but, at the same time, states that the amount is not to be paid out to the landlord unless he accepts it in full discharge of the liability, that would be imposing a condition. Or, if the tenant says that the amount deposited by him should be kept in deposit and should not be paid out till the decision of the suit, that will make the deposit conditional. But taking divergent pleas in the written statement as to the extent or quantum of liability to pay rent does not make the deposit conditional. The purpose of the deposit is to pay it to the landlord 'forthwith' (see sub-section (6)) The deposit is to be unconditional in the sense that there be no impediment or condition to its immediate payment. In the present case, the landlord claimed that the agreed rent was Rs. 360/-per month. The tenant pleaded that the agreed rate was Rs. 125/-per month. The trial court found that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 360/- per month. The tenant had, however, made the deposit at the first hearing in accordance with the rate of rent being Rs. 360/- per month. The deposit was of the entire amount due. It was not accompanied by any condition as explained above. 125/-per month. The trial court found that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 360/- per month. The tenant had, however, made the deposit at the first hearing in accordance with the rate of rent being Rs. 360/- per month. The deposit was of the entire amount due. It was not accompanied by any condition as explained above. The taking of a plea in the written statement that the rate of rent was different was not imposing any condition. The deposit was unconditional. 15. In Inder Kuer v. Chandra Shekhar, 1979 AWC 56, it was rightly held that deposit under protest is unconditional. The decision in Ram Kishan's case (supra) to the effect that pleadings do not have any relevance to the unconditionally of the deposit is correct. The view expressed in Laxmi Narain Sharma (supra) and in Har Prasad v. Dharamadeo, 1981 ALJ 216 that a deposit coupled with a prayer that it be kept in court till decision of the suit rendered the deposit conditional, is in consonance with our views stated above. 16. Learned counsel for the opposite party strongly relied in Mangal Sen v. Kanchid Mal, 1981 AWC 618. This decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable. In that case an additional point was raised before the Supreme Court for the first time that the tenant-appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4). The court found :- "There is absolutely no material available on the record to show that the alleged deposit of Rs.1,980/- was made by the tenant on the first date of hearing itself, and, what is more important, that the said deposit was made by way of unconditional tender for payment to the landlord." It went on to observe : "Further, there is also nothing on record to show that what was deposited was the correct amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 (4)." On these observations the question did not survive. The Court, however, went on to make a passing observation that the deposit even if it was made on the date of first hearing was not an unconditional tender of the amount for payment to the landlord because in the written statement the tenant had denied that he had defaulted or that any arrears existed. Firstly, in the present case there is no such complete denial. Firstly, in the present case there is no such complete denial. Here only a different rate of rent was pleaded in the written statement. In the next place, the judgment of the Supreme Court shows the Court quoted and considered the provisions of Section 20 (2) (a) and sub-section (4). 17. The attention of the Court was not invited to sub-section (6) of section 20 which was more material for this purpose. If the Court had considered the effect of sub-section (6) of Section 20, the result may have been different. 18. For the opposite party it was faintly urged that there was in fact no deposit in court on account of which the tenant could be given the benefit of Section 20(4). It was urged that the tenant had, on October 30, 1973, deposited the requisite amount due in court but on February 13, 1976 he paid the amount due directly to the plaintiff-landlord and thereafter withdrew the amount deposited by him in court. The court below has observed that nothing in detail has been shown by the plaintiff how the amount deposited on October 30, 1973 stands withdrawn. But assuming that the amount was withdrawn, it was clear that it was withdrawn after an equal amount had actually been paid to the landlord. Under Section 20 (6), the deposit made by the tenant has to be paid to the landlord. Under the circumstances, the tenant's paying the amount directly to the landlord and then withdrawing the deposit from the court will only amount to payment to the landlord under Section 20 (6). It cannot possibly be said that there was no deposit at all within meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 20. In view of our finding that the defendant-tenant had, at the first hearing, unconditionally deposited the amount due, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) by being relieved of the liability of ejectment. 19. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The decree of the court below is modified and the suit for ejectment is dismissed with costs in both the courts. The rest of the decree is maintained. Revision allowed.