Judgment 1. This application in revision has been filed by the tenant defendant against the order dated 25-11-1980 passed under S.13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1977 Act). 2. The suit was instituted on 19th March, 1980. Admittedly the last rent paid by the petitioner was at the rate of Rs. 105/- per month. It is not quite clear as to when the petitioner filed an application before the House Controller, but one thing is certain that by an order dated 29th of April, 1980, the House Controller directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, in consequence whereof the petitioner did deposit some amount of rent in the Court of the House Controller. An application was filed subsequently in the suit in question with which we are concerned under S.13 of the 1977 Act, for a direction to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current rent from month to month in accordance with the provisions of law. 3. The petitioner has taken the plea that since he has already deposited some amount of rent in the Court of the House Controller, the trial court was clearly in error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order directing him to deposit the arrears of rent since the date of the institution of the suit up to Nov., 1980. 4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, namely L.M. Sharma, J., in the case of Manager, Indian Express V/s. Md. Nizamuddin (1974 BLJR 5). When the case was first placed for hearing before that very learned Judge, he had doubts with regard to the correctness of that decision and hence, the case has been referred to a Division Bench. Thus, the case has come up before us. In that case also which was a case under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "1947 Act", an application had been made under S.11-A of that Act which is mutatis mutandis the same as S.13 of the 1977 Act. The learned Judge held that it does not matter at all if the arrears of rent have already been deposited by the tenant before the House Controller under S.11 of the 1947 Act. The learned Judge held that it does not matter at all if the arrears of rent have already been deposited by the tenant before the House Controller under S.11 of the 1947 Act. It was sufficient for the purpose of discharging the statutory obligation of the tenant under S.13 of the Act to show that rent had been deposited before the House Controller, although not in the suit itself which would be a mere matter of adjustment, though ultimately the suit was decreed in favour of the landlord. We are afraid the decision is not in accordance with the law, S.13 of the Act lays down that: "If in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant contests the suit, as regards claim for ejectment, the landlord may make an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any, and the Court, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make an order for deposit of rent at such rate as may be determined month by month and the arrears of rent, if any, and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days of the date of the order of the rent at such rate for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month, the Court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck out and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment. The landlord may also apply for permission to withdraw the deposited rent without prejudice to his right to claim decree for ejectment and the Court may permit him to do so. The Court may further order recovery of cost of suit and such other compensation as may be determined by it from the tenant." 5. On a plain reading of the section it is manifest that on making of an application under S.13 if an order is passed in favour of the landlord plaintiff, the court may make an order for deposit of rent, etc. It does not contemplate either any adjustment of deposit made in any other case or another forum. On a plain reading of the section it is manifest that on making of an application under S.13 if an order is passed in favour of the landlord plaintiff, the court may make an order for deposit of rent, etc. It does not contemplate either any adjustment of deposit made in any other case or another forum. It is in the suit itself that by virtue of the section, the Court has got absolute jurisdiction to direct the defaulting tenant to deposit arrears of rent which means the deposit in that Court. We are, therefore, constrained to hold and respectfully that the learned single Judge did not fully appreciate the intent and purport of the provisions of S.13 of the 1977 Act. 6. The application is, therefore, dismissed, but since the petitioners case was covered by a decision of learned single Judge of this Court, we are not inclined to pass any order as to costs and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case we direct that the petitioner shall deposit the rent within a period of six months peremptorily. The entire rent for the period between 15th March, 1980 up to the end of the month of Nov., 1980 and subsequent thereto, the rent has been deposited by the petitioner by virtue of the order of this Court, while issuing a Rule Nisi in this case. In the event of failure on the part of the plaintiff to deposit the balance arrears at the rate of 105/- per month, the defence of the petitioner shall stand struck out. Application dismissed.