JUDGMENT : Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. - The point to be decided in this case is whether on the fixation of fair rent of a building under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 the tenant can be directed to deposit rent under section 13 (corresponding to section 15 of the present Act) of the Act in a pending suit at the rate he has been paying or whether the Court has no jurisdiction to ORDER :deposit at a rate higher than the fair rent. 2. A portion of a building in Gaya town belonging to the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 was let out to the petitioner. The plaintiff filed the present suit out of which this application in revision arises in May, 1979 for eviction of the defendants on the ground that there was default in payment of rent since November, 1976 and that the petitioner-defendant no. 1 had sublet the premises to the opposite party no. 2. The defendant, made an application under section 13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 for a direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- and to go on depositing the future rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month. The petitioner denied the liability to deposit the rent at the rate claimed on the ground that the authority under the Buildings Control Act had determined the fair rent at Rs. 9/- per month. Overruling this objection, the Court below has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff by the impugned ORDER :. 3. The case was earlier listed before me sitting singly when I referred it for hearing before a Division Bench. 4. It has been .contended by Mr. R. S. Chatterjee, appearing in support of the application that in view of the fair rent having been fixed in this Case at Rs. 9/- per month; the petitioner cannot be asked to pay to the plaintiff-landlord the rant at a higher rate. This argument, to my mind, cannot be accepted in face of the decision of the Full Bench in N. M. Verma v. U. N. Singh (1977 B.B.C.J. 662 : 1978 PLJR 32 ) 5. In N.M. Verma's case, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the building in question on a monthly rental of Rs. 160/- which was later enhanced to Rs. In N.M. Verma's case, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the building in question on a monthly rental of Rs. 160/- which was later enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month. Relying on the provisions of section 4 of the Buildings Control Act, the petitioner in that case contended that the enhancement in the rent was illegal and the petitioner, therefore, could not be directed to deposit the higher, amount which was not lawfully payable. The argument was over-ruled and it was held that Section 11A of the earlier Act (corresponding to Section 13 of 1977 Act) required the tenant to deposit the rent at a rate at which it was last paid. If the rent has been actually paid by the tenant and received by the landlord at a particular rate, the same has to be accepted for the limited purpose of the section. It has pointed out that an ORDER :to that effect was interim in nature subject to the equities between the parties to be finally settled at the time of disposal of the suit. Deposit of the rent by the tenant in the suit under this section is not tantamount to payment to the landlord and the landlord, therefore, has not been given an unqualified right to withdraw the deposited money during the pendency of the litigation. On an application for that purpose, the Court has to pass fresh ORDER :s and, for that purpose, the Court may in its discretion allow only partial withdrawal in a case where fair rent is fixed. Although on the facts, the present case is not identical to the Full Bench case, the observations in paragraph 8 of the JUDGMENT : are fully applicable. It must, therefore, be held that even in cases where fair rent is fixed, the tenant will have to deposit the rent at a rate at which, as a matter of fact, it was last paid. In the present case, the learned Munsif has recorded a finding that the rent was last paid at the rate of Rs. 60/- and not at the rate of Rs. 9/-. In that view, the ORDER :under revision appears to have been correctly passed. 6. In the result, this civil revision application is dismissed, but without costs.