JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal directed against judgment and decree of Sri R. P. Pandeya, learned Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Ballia, dated 18-9-1973. He allowed Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1972 arising out of original suit No. 85 of 1968, and reversed the judgment of learned Munsif relating to ejectment of respondent from the premises in, dispute. The amount in deposit under S. 7-C, U.P. Act III of 1947 (U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act) was ordered to be withdrawn by plaintiff landlord towards the arrears of rent claimed. Under the circumstances of the case, no order was made about the costs of the appeal. 2. It appears that the suit was filed on 21-3-1968 by Mahboob Mian whose heirs are appellants now. It related to a shop situated in Gudari Market, Ballia city, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. 3. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent at the monthly rate of Rs. 25/- . Although, the amount claimed was Rs. 229/- on aforesaid rate Rs. 2/- were further claimed as damages for use and occupation. Ejectment of defendant was also sought along with the costs of the suit. 4. The tenancy commences from 10th day of every month of English calendar. The defendant was in arrears of rent for a period of eight months on 13-2-1968. A notice for demand and ejectment was served on him through refusal on 14-2-1968. Defendant did not pay the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises in question within the period given in the notice. It was further averred that defendant promised to vacate the premises when demanded by plaintiff. Hence the aforesaid suit was filed claiming the above reliefs. 5. Defendant denied that he ever agreed to vacate the premises on demand by plaintiff. According to him, there was no default on his part in payment of rent. Plaintiff went on increasing rent from Rs. 18/- to 25/- per month. That rent was paid through a receipt on 11-6-1967. The subsequent rent was sent through money order for the period from July 1967 to November 1967. That money order was refused. Thereafter, it was deposited under Section 7-C of the U.P. Act III of 1947 (U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act) in the Court concerned. 6. That rent was paid through a receipt on 11-6-1967. The subsequent rent was sent through money order for the period from July 1967 to November 1967. That money order was refused. Thereafter, it was deposited under Section 7-C of the U.P. Act III of 1947 (U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act) in the Court concerned. 6. When plaintiff signified his unwillingness to accept rent and issue receipt, defendant again sent the arrears of rent through money order for the period 12-11-1967 to 12-2-1968 which was again refused. The suit was, not maintainable. 7. This case was initially decided by Sri Hira Dass, learned Munsif, Ballia, on 6-10-1972 and the plaintiffs claim was allowed. The case was remanded on 9-3-1972 in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1971. After remand, the case was again decreed on 29-9-1972. Defendant carried matter in appeal which was allowed by the impugned judgment and decree. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned Advocate, pressed this appeal before me on two points only. 10. First point is the default committed by defendant under S. 3(i)(1). U.P. Act III of 1947. 11. This point may be disposed of first. According to the contention of appellant, no rent was received by plaintiff for the period subsequent to June, 1967. A notice of demand was served by plaintiff on defendant on 14-2-1969 which was refused. The amount of Rs. 125/- deposited by tenant under S. 7-C, U.P. Act III of 1947, could not be considered to save default as the application of plaintiff was rejected on 10-2-1968 vide order in Ext. 5 which runs as below : "10-2-68. The case is called. Parties are present. Heard them, considered. The amount (of Rs. 125/- ) deposited shall at once be taken back by the applicant (for sake of convenience latest by 12-2-68), for there is no authority under which an applicant under S. 7-C, Act III of 1947, can deposit the rent, simply for the reason of having filed an application under S. 7-C, Act III of 1947, unless ordered by the Court. The application is not maintainable on merits too. As such, its application is discrepant and is fit to be rejected. The application is not maintainable on merits too. As such, its application is discrepant and is fit to be rejected. Let the applicant pay 1-50P by 12-2-68 as C.F. more on 4-C2 for it contains two specific separate prayers failing which the amount shall be got deducted from the amount tendered by him (Rs. 125/- ) Inform Nazir, (by) sending this order's copy (of relevant portion) to him. Sd/- Shiva Prasad 10-2-68 2. The 8-C/2 is dropped in view of judgment, at supra. 3. The Misc. proceedings be dropped in the file sent to R/R. Sd/- Shiva Prasad 10-2-68" 12. Learned counsel for appellant also pointed out that the deposit was not of full amount and since it has been rejected by the learned Munsif, so the deposit could not be taken in account to save default. 13. It appears that in his statement dated 19-9-1971, plaintiff Mahboob Mian faltered and stated that the rent from Dec. 1968 was due. It appears that according to his case, rent from July 1967 was due. 14. In his statement dated 24-9-1974, Nandji Ram defendant testified that no rent was due, he sent rent through money order. That money order was refused by landlord vide M.O. receipt Ext. A-65. After this refusal, the amount was deposited in Court vide tender Ext. A-11. This deposit was wrongly rejected by learned Munsif as held by learned appellate Court. Thereafter, defendant went on remitting rent for subsequent period through money orders' and on refusal, deposited again in Court vide Exts. A-67 and A-68. 15. This on behalf of tenant, it was successfully shown before me that four months' rent was not due when defendant was served with a notice of demand on 14-2-1968. The tenant could not be alleged to be a wilful defaulter within the meaning of S. 3(1)(a) aforesaid. 16. In this connection reliance was placed upon Debi Prasad v. Jia Lal, 1978 All LJ 227 where it was observed (at p. 229) : "If the tenancy is monthly and not daily or weekly the notice of demand for arrears of rent can be given only when four months' rent is due and not three months and a fraction of a month is due." 17. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon Shri Radha Kishanji Maharaj v. Raja Ram, (1978) 4 All LR 612 : 1978 All LJ NOC 161 which stated : "If a landlord refused to accept rent a tenant was entitled to deposit it under S. 7-C and to continue to deposit subsequent rent also in order to save his eviction but if the landlord communicated his willingness to accept rent by a notice in writing, the tenant had to suspend depositing it in Court and had again to offer it to the landlord or his agent. If the latter had again refused to accept, it could be deposited under S. 7-C and not otherwise. In the instant case the position is clear that on 1-1-1971 the plaintiff had expressed an unequivocal willingness to accept rent through its Sarbarakariya. Smt. Rudhmati. The defendant received this notice on 25-2-1971 and thereafter he should have stopped depositing rent under S. 7-C and should have made an effort to pay to the Sarbarkariya of the plaintiff. Therefore, the deposit made by the defendant under S. 7-C after receiving the notice of 1-1-1971 was not justified and cannot enure to his benefit. If it is ruled out of consideration there is no manner of doubt that he is liable to ejectment." 18. In the instant case, the landlord never expressed willingness to accept rent from the tenant. There is the sole testimony of defendant on the point that plaintiff refused to accept rent offered to him repeatedly. He was obliged to pay rent by sending arrears of rent through money orders and depositing the same in Court. His statement on this point is fully corroborated by all the receipts filed by him which are on record and which show that the tenant took every possible step within his means and power to pay the rent but the landlord went on refusing the same. In Kaloo v. Gauri Shanker, 1981 All LJ 478 at P. 483 : AIR 1981 SC 1455 at p. 1460 it was observed : "He took every possible step within his means and power to pay the rent. It would be a travesty of justice if on some hyper-technical consideration such an over-zealous tenant can be denied the protection of the rent Act. It would be a travesty of justice if on some hyper-technical consideration such an over-zealous tenant can be denied the protection of the rent Act. Any other interpretation of the conduct of the tenant may lead in a given case to perversion of the Act, namely, adequate protection of the tenant." I have carefully perused Ex. 5. the order recorded by learned Munsif directing the tenant to withdraw the amount which had been deposited by him in Court. He simply observed that the application was not maintainable as the deposit was made without the order of the Court. Learned lower appellate court rightly pointed out that learned Munsif did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. It appears that the deposit had already been made by the tenant much earlier than the rejection of his application. Such deposit could not have been made without compliance of Rr. 277 to 283, General Rules Civil. 19. Learned lower appellate court rightly pointed out that after issuing notice, the application could have been rejected only (1) when defendant was not the tenant of the landlord or (2) when landlord had not expressed his reluctance in accepting arrears of rent offered to him. Ext. 5 shows that learned Munsif nowhere found both these jurisdictional facts against the tenant. These jurisdictional facts were pointed out in Fateh Chand v. Balswaroop Goel, 1967 All LJ 979. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that Ext. 5 was simply an arbitrary order recorded by learned Munsif and such error on the part of the Court could not operate to the prejudice of the tenant. There is evidence on record to show that the amount was not withdrawn by the tenant but was still lying in Court. Under S. 7-C(6) such deposit shall be deemed as payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord. In Nathi Lal v. Ramji Lal, 1980 All LJ 830 at p. 833, it was observed that the effect of deposit under sub-s. (6), S. 7(c) was that where rept had been deposited under sub-ss. (1) and (2) it was deemed to have been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord. In Nathi Lal v. Ramji Lal, 1980 All LJ 830 at p. 833, it was observed that the effect of deposit under sub-s. (6), S. 7(c) was that where rept had been deposited under sub-ss. (1) and (2) it was deemed to have been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord. Rejection of deposit cannot be treated as determinant of the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant vide Janki Prasad Misra v. Ranvir Singh Rathore, 1965 All LJ 942 where it was laid down : "The view taken was that under S. 7(d), the Munsif is not required to determine the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant. All that the Munsif is required to do is that on deposit of rent under S. 7(c) he has to issue a notice to the landlord informing him that such deposit has been made. It is then open to the landlord to accept the amount or not to accept it. The Munsif has to hold the amount in deposit for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to the same . Sub-sec. (6) operates by itself and if the deposit has been lawfully made the rent shall be deemed to have been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord. It was, further, observed that sub-s. (1) of S. 7(c) gives a right to the tenant to deposit rent when landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by the tenant. A tenant may allege that the landlord has refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him and may deposit it but the section itself does not require the Munsif to go into the question whether the landlord refuses to accept the rent lawfully or otherwise. This question is a question of fact to be determined in appropriate proceedings and if and when the question of refusal by landlord of rent lawfully paid to him arises and it has been held that the deposit was made of any rent which the landlord has unlawfully refused to accept, the provisions of sub-s. (6) will apply. Almost a similar view was taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Shanti Devi v. Chandra Mukhi, 1967 All LJ 788. It was held that the Court hearing the ejectment suit is not bound by the order of rejection of an application made under S. 7(c). Almost a similar view was taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Shanti Devi v. Chandra Mukhi, 1967 All LJ 788. It was held that the Court hearing the ejectment suit is not bound by the order of rejection of an application made under S. 7(c). The question whether the tenant was entitled to make deposit under S. 7(c) is to be considered afresh by the Court hearing the suit for ejectment." 20. Thus, the rejection of the application of tenant by learned Munsiff in this case was purely illegal. 21. In Haji Abdul Karim v. Mohammad Ismail, 1978 (UP) RCC 691, it was pointed out that Munsif has no jurisdiction to enter into the rights and obligation of the parties as it was a provision of supplementary nature and it was undesirable for him to assume jurisdiction to enter into the question of the rights of the parties. 22. Learned lower appellate Court rightly pointed out that learned Munsif did not apply his mind to the facts of the case at all and so such rejection of the deposit cannot prejudice the tenant in any manner specially when the amount was still being held with him. 23. It was held in Shanti Devi v. Chandra Mukhi, 1967 All LJ 788 : "When an application is filed under S. 7-C. U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, there is no dispute to be decided. It is significant that sub-s. (4) of S. 7-C does not say that Munsif shall send a notice to the landlord to show cause against the application. The purpose of the notice under sub-s. (4) is to inform the landlord that a deposit had been made and he may withdraw it on an application to the Court. Thus the Court becomes a sort of custodian of any deposit made under S. 7-C but it does not have to decide whether any dispute or doubt has arisen as to the person entitled to receive the rent. Thus the Court becomes a sort of custodian of any deposit made under S. 7-C but it does not have to decide whether any dispute or doubt has arisen as to the person entitled to receive the rent. This is a matter which is left for the decision of the appropriate Court, if any, when the tenant claims that he made no default in payment of rent because he deposited it under S. 7-C. It is for the Court hearing the suit for ejectment to decide whether the tenant was entitled to make a deposit under S. 7-C and if it holds that he was so entitled, it will dismiss the suit for ejectment even if the Munsif had rejected the application under S. 7-C for some erroneous reason. The Court hearing the ejectment suit is not bound by the order of rejection and consider afresh whether the tenant was entitled to make a deposit under S. 7-C and whether the Court was justified in refusing to accept it." 24. Under these circumstances, the finding of learned lower appellate-Court that the landlord cannot by his own conduct create for himself a favourable situation to sue for eviction is correct. As such, although the plaintiff landlord had not actually received the arrears of rent on account of his refusal to accept the same upon its being tendered, the tenant cannot be held to have failed to pay the same to the landlord. The tenant, therefore, had not committed default within the meaning of S. 3(1)(a), Act III of 1947. (2) Learned counsel for appellant pressed before me the next point which is alleged to be an agreement alleged to have been executed by defendant to vacate the premises whenever required by landlord. In his statement dated 19-9-1972, Mahboob Mian testified about it. It is evidenced by paper No. 142-Ka 1 which purports to have been scribed by one Kanhaiya and signed by Nandji Ram. It is marked as Ex. 6. It contains the promise on the part of the tenant to vacate the shop on demand. Nandji Ram in his statement dated 19-9-1972 has emphatically repudiated this agreement. He also denied his signatures on this document. These signatures were not sent to the expert for comparison under S. 45 Illus. (c), Evidence Act. If landlord wanted to do so, he could have produced expert's opinion in this matter. Nandji Ram in his statement dated 19-9-1972 has emphatically repudiated this agreement. He also denied his signatures on this document. These signatures were not sent to the expert for comparison under S. 45 Illus. (c), Evidence Act. If landlord wanted to do so, he could have produced expert's opinion in this matter. Thus, it had not been proved that this document had been executed by tenant. 25. Moreover, such agreement which was calculated to defeat the provisions of Tenancy Act (Act III of 1947) cannot be allowed to stand. It is void under S. 23, Contract Act. In Ram Agyan Singh v. Murlidhar Agarwal, 1971 All LJ 79, it was observed that parties cannot form an agreement which will deprive District Magistrate of power coupled with duty. Tenant cannot be evicted without permission of District Magistrate even though he may have earlier agreed to give up benefit of S. 3. Section 3, U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947, gives power to the District Magistrate to grant or refuse permission in appropriate cases after considering the claim of the landlord and the needs of the tenant. Such power is coupled with his duty. In the teeth of such provisions, such illegal agreement cannot be sustained. 26. No other point was argued before me. 27. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree are affirmed.