JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - This is a Plaintiff's revision. A suit was filed by him for the ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 7240/- plus mesne profit plus a sum of Rs. 1800/- as arrears of water-tax and electricity charges. The allegations of the Plaintiff were that Defendant had defaulted in the payment of the aforesaid amount and that inspite of notice he neither paid the dues nor vacated the premises Allegations with regard to the making of material alterations in the building in dispute were also made but it has no conceren with the decision in this case. 2. The Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the entire amount had been paid and that nothing was due. On the first date of hearing, however, he deposited a sum of Rs. 15406/- which covered the entire amount claimed by the Plaintiff including interests and costs of the suit. It was pleaded by him that he was not liable to ejectment. It may further be mentioned that the Defendant also pleaded the payment of the water charges and Municipal dues to the Plaintiff. 3. The Judge Small Causes decreed the suit of the Plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 7240/-as arrears of rent from 1-10-1976, the rest of the reliefs were refused. The Plaintiff was awarded proportionate costs of the suit. He was also directed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Defendant to the extent of the decree with interest thereon. 4. Aggrieved thereby two revisions have been filed in this Court. Civil Revision No. 578 of 1981 was filed by Devi Prasad, Plaintiff-applicant, claiming ejectment of the Defendant and also a decree for the electricity and water-tax charges. Civil Revision No. 61 of 1982 has been filed by the tenant Ram Kumar Maheshwari in which he has prayed for expunction of the observation made by the Judge Small Causes with regard to the forged nature of the documents (Exs. A-11; A-14; and A-15). In these circumstances both these revisions have come up before me for decision. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned Order. 6. A-11; A-14; and A-15). In these circumstances both these revisions have come up before me for decision. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned Order. 6. The Plaintiff-applicant's Counsel has argued that there has been noncompliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, in as much as the Defendant had not deposited the amount of arrears of rent etc. unconditionally. He has submitted that when an application was filed by the Plaintiff, viz. 15/2 C for withdrawing the amount of deposit, the Counsel for the Defendant made an endorsement thereon 'received copy, strongly opposed, shall file objection'. On this basis he urged that the payment of deposit of arrears of rent was opposed by the Defendant and therefore, it will not amount to an unconditional deposit and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 7. The trial Court has considered this aspect of the matter and on the basis of record has observed that even though the Counsel for the Defendant may have made the endorsement aforesaid, yet no written objection was filed on behalf of the Defendant-tenant and no one objected to the grant of the application for the withdrawal of the arrears of rent. In these circumstances, the trial Court held that there was in fact no objection to the withdrawal of the arrears of rent etc. deposited by the Defendant and hence he was fully covered by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Rent Control Act. The reasoning of the Court below is sound. I am in full agreement with its view. Unconditional deposit as contemplated by Section 20(4) of the Act refers to that stage of the proceedings in Court when on the first date of hearing the amount due is actually deposited by the Defendant (tenant). The reasoning of the Court below is sound. I am in full agreement with its view. Unconditional deposit as contemplated by Section 20(4) of the Act refers to that stage of the proceedings in Court when on the first date of hearing the amount due is actually deposited by the Defendant (tenant). If on that date along with the deposit, an application had been filed to the effect that the amount be not paid over to the land-lord till the decision of the suit, or some such other condition had been attached to the deposit, it can be argued that such deposit was not unconditional, but if no such strings are attached to the deposit at the time when it was made, then in my opinion, it cannot be urged that such a deposit was not unconditional merely because at a subsequent stage some objection was taken by the Counsel which did not fructify, and was not persued at all by the tenant concerned. As I have mentioned above no objection was filed by the Defendant in this case. The withdrawal was in fact not opposed by the tenant, or his counsel. Therefore, the Defendant (tenant;, in these circumstances was fully entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 8. Counsel for the Plaintiff-applicant has cited before me a Supreme Court decision reported in Mangalsen v. Kanchhid Mal 1981 AWC (SC) 618. In that-case three circumstances existed. The plea of Section 20(4) of the Act was taken up for the first time before the Supreme Court, and that the Court observed that it was not certain on what date the deposit of arrears was made. It also observed that it was not clear whether the amount of the arrears was correct or not? It further went on to observe that in order that the tenant may take the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, the deposit by him should be unconditional The Supreme Court decision appears to have been referred in a Division Bench case of this Court, Mahendra Pratap Garg Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxami Gengal, (1982) AWC 731 , in which Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Satish Chandra, and Hon. K.C. Agarwal, J. had observed that "the attention of the Supreme Court was not invited to Sub-section (6) of Section 20 which was more material for this purpose. Smt. Vijay Laxami Gengal, (1982) AWC 731 , in which Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Satish Chandra, and Hon. K.C. Agarwal, J. had observed that "the attention of the Supreme 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." 9. It may be mentioned at this stage that Sub-section (6) of Section 20 as amended by U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act No. 37 of 1972, on 16th September, 1972 reads as follows: Any amount deposited by the tenant under Sub-section (4) of Rule 5 of Order 15 of the First Schedule to the CPC shall be paid to the landlord forthwith on his application without prejudice to the parties' pleadings and subject to the ultimate decision in the suit. A perusal of this section indicates that the deposit which is made by the tenant at the first hearing of the suit, if made without any condition is meant to be paid to the landlord forthwith on an application being made by him, but that does not preclude a Defendant from pleading in his written statement that he has as a matter of fact already paid the arrears due, either in part, or as a whole. That is a question which can be raised by him in the written statement and it would be for the Court to decide whether the plea taken up by him is true or not? The amount to be decreed as arrears would, thus, depend upon the factual decision of the Court which has to be arrived at in due course of law after recording the evidence of the parties. The amended Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act reaffirms the rights of the citizen as a contending party to a suit to plead his case in full, despite the fact that without prejudice to his right, he has made the deposit of the entire arrears of rent in Court, at the first hearing, to satisfy the claim of the Plaintiff-land-lord. These two different stages in a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent are to be dealt with differently and on different considerations. 10. These two different stages in a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent are to be dealt with differently and on different considerations. 10. Applying these principles to the present case, it is eviden that the landlord had claimed recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 7240/-; Rs. 925/- as arrears of water tax and Rs. 875/- as arrears of electricity charges, apart from the interest claimed thereon and costs of the suit. The Court below passed a decree for the whole amount of rent as claimed by the Plaintiff. But it held that arrears of water tax and electricity charges had already been paid by the tenant-Defendant. It only granted a decree for arrears of rent plus interests plus costs. If the Defendant had been shut out from taking this plea in the written statement of payment of water tax and electricity charges, having already been made to the Plaintiff, a very severe injustice would have been done. While on the one hand the control of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act protects the landlord from unnecessary harassment by a defaulting tenant by casting on him a duty to deposit the entire amount of arrears of rent on the first date of hearing before allowing him to put up a defence; on the other hand the same Act protects the rights of the tenant to plead a just cause and to prevent the land-lord from making exaggerated claims. 11. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction. There is thus no merit in Revision No. 578 of 1981, filed by Devi Prasad which is hereby dismissed with costs. 12. So far as Civil Revision No. 61 of 1982 is concerned, which has been filed by Ram Kumar Maheshwari landlord, that in my opinion is not maintainable at all. No decree or order has been passed against Ram Kumar Maheshwari. There are certain observations only in the body of the judgment with regard to certain receipts which were filed in token of the alleged payment of rent having been made by him. The trial Court bad held that these were forged documents. No decree or order has been passed against Ram Kumar Maheshwari. There are certain observations only in the body of the judgment with regard to certain receipts which were filed in token of the alleged payment of rent having been made by him. The trial Court bad held that these were forged documents. I am informed that an application u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Plaintiff before the appropriate Court for filing a complaint against the Defendant. The Defendant is contesting that application. That is the proper forum where he should vindicate his rights. Remedy by way of Civil Revision in this Court is not open. Thus Civil Revision No. 61 of 1982 is also dismissed with costs.