JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners praying for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 19.11.1973 (Annexure-1 to the petition) and judgment and order dated 6.8.1974 (Annexure-2 to the petition) passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are : The petitioners filed a suit in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad, for the recovery of arrears of rent as well as ejectment of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 on the allegations that the defendants being tenants of the shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month had failed to pay the rent since 15.6.1966 and thus committed default in the payment of rent and were liable to ejectment. The plaintiffs (petitioners) alleged that one Nazir Hussain was the tenant of the plaintiffs and Ahmad Hussain, respondent No. 5, had no concern with the shop in dispute though as a measure of abundant caution notice was addressed to both of them. The defendants contested the suit and Nazir Husain alleged in his written statement filed on 1.12.1969 that Ahmad Husain was also a joint tenant of the shop in dispute and thus the notice served upon Nazir Husain alone was invalid. In view of the allegations in the written statement by an amendment Ahmad Husain was also impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 2. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that as notice was not served on Ahmad Husain and only on Nazir Husain hence the suit for want of notice was not maintainable. The trial Court apparently was swayed by the alleged interpolations in the notice by the inclusion of the name of Ahmad Husain therein. The trial court thus recorded a finding that the notice was not served on defendant No. 2 Ahmad Husain (respondent No. 5). In regard to the arrears of rent the trial court came to the conclusion that in view of the deposit having been made under section 7 - C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) the tenant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. In regard to the arrears of rent the trial court came to the conclusion that in view of the deposit having been made under section 7 - C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) the tenant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. In view of the findings that the notice was illegal as well as the tenant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent, it having been deposited under section 7 - C of the Act, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.11.1973 dismissing the suit of the petitioners a revision was preferred to the court of the District Judge, Moradabad, which was transferred to the court of 4th Additional District Judge, Moradabad, respondent No. 1 for disposal according to law. The respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the notice would be deemed to have been served on Abmad Husain, defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 5) but in view of the deposit having been made under section 7 - C of the Act the defendants were not defaulters with in the meaning of section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent No. 1 thus dismissed the revision with the observation that as the rent had been deposited in court the plaintiffs could withdraw it. It might be stated here that the respondent No. 1 committed a manifest error of law in holding that in view of the deposited having been made under section 7 - C(2) of the Act the plaintiffs could withdraw it. The revisional court failed to appreciate that the amount could not be withdrawn until the controversy as to who was entitled to receive the same was resolved. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders of the respondents Nos. 2 and 1 the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The controversy in a narrow compass would lie as to whether the contesting respondents in view of the deposit having been made under section 7 - C of the Act would be absolved of their liability to ejectment. Learned counsel for the parties have made their submission in detail. 4. The petitioners had sent a notice dated 29.4.1969 of demand and ejectment which came back with the remark 'refused'. Learned counsel for the parties have made their submission in detail. 4. The petitioners had sent a notice dated 29.4.1969 of demand and ejectment which came back with the remark 'refused'. The remark of refusal is dated 3.5.1969 and would mean that the notice of demand was served on Nazir Husain on 3.5.1969. Earlier the shop in dispute was owned by the petitioners as well as Sint. Bashiran and Munna Jan. Half of the rent amounting to Rs. 7/- was paid to the petitioners and the other half, namely Rs. 7/- to Smt. Bashiran and Munna Jan. Consequent to the passing of a partition decree in suit No. 85 of 1966 the entire shop came to the share of the petitioners. The final partition decree was passed on 9.3.1968. In February 1969 Nazir Husain and Ahmad Husain remitted Rs. 136/- to Smt. Bismillah (petitioner No. 1) as her share of the rent but the money order was allegedly refused and the rent was not accepted. After the lapse of a few months on 16.5.1969 Nazir Husain and Abmad Husain sent a registered notice to the petitioner and also to Smt. Bashiran and Munna Jan enquiring about the rent due from them and also as to whom it should be paid in view of the non - acceptance of the rent which was remitted by Money Order. This notice dated 16.5.1969 sent by Nazir Husain and Ahmad Husain was duly replied by the petitioners through their counsel on 22.5.1969. However, Smt. Bashiran and Munna Jan did not reply to the notice dated 16 5.1969. On behalf of the petitioners while replying to the notice dated 16.5.1969 it was informed that the petitioners in view of a partition decree having been passed had become the sole owner of the shop in dispute. This reply further stated that the notice of demand and ejectment sent on behalf of the petitioners had been received back with the remark 'refused' on receiving such a reply instead of tendering the amount to the petitioners as demanded vide notice dated 29.4.1969, Nazir Husain and Ahmad Husain filed an application under section 7 - C of the Act in the Court of Munsif, Moradabad, depositing Rs. 273/- on 2.6.1969. Objection against this application under section 7 - C of the Act was filed by the petitioners. 273/- on 2.6.1969. Objection against this application under section 7 - C of the Act was filed by the petitioners. However, the Munsif, Moradabad, allowed Nazir Husain and Abmad Husain to deposit the rent at their own risk without prejudice to the rights of the parties. It significantly emerges from the evidence on record that Nazir Husain and Ahmad Husain were aware about the notice dated 29.4.1969 sent to them on which the remark of refusal was made. However the rent was deposited on the last day i.e. on 2.6.1969 when the stipulated period after the service of notice was expiring. Another significant fact which attracts attention is that inspite of the notice dated 22.5.1969 sent on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Bismillah stating therein that she had become the sole owner of the shop in dispute and in view of the demand having been made in the notice dated 29.4.1969 rent was deposited on 2.6.1969 by Nazir Husain and Abmad Husain. No doubt Smt. Bashiran and Munna Jan had not replied to the notice dated 16.5.1969 sent by Nazir Husain and Ahmad Husain, but that alone would not entitle Nazir Husain and Abmad Husain to deposit the amount under section 7 - C(2) of the Act when it was categorically informed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 that she had become the sole owner of the shop in dispute in view of the partition decree having been passed. Both the courts below failed to consider that after the notice dated 29.4.1969 was served on Nazir Husain on 3.5.1969 demanding the rent, it was not permissible for the tenants to have deposited the rent under section 7 - C(2) of the Act. The petitioner No. 1 had clearly made her intention to accept the rent. Both the courts below failed to consider that after the notice dated 29.4.1969 was served on Nazir Husain on 3.5.1969 demanding the rent, it was not permissible for the tenants to have deposited the rent under section 7 - C(2) of the Act. The petitioner No. 1 had clearly made her intention to accept the rent. It would be necessary to extract the provisions of section 7 - C(1) and section 7 - C(2) as well as section 7 - C(6) of the Act which are reproduced below : "7 - C(1) When a landlord refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant in respect of any accommodation the tenant may in the prescribed manner deposit such rent and continue to deposit any subsequent rent which becomes due in respect of such accommodation unless the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to tenant his willingness to accept." 7 - C(2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may similarly deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent doubt, or by settlement between the parties continue to deposit in like manner the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building." "7 - C.(6) In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord." Both the courts below have found that the notice dated 29.4.1969 was served on 3.5.1969. The trial court, however, held the notice to be illegal on the assumption that it had not been served on Ahmad Husain who was a joint tenant, but this finding was reversed by respondent No. 1 in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Khangi Mangi v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 468 The notice on the basis of the above view was found to be a valid one. There is also no denial that the notice was served on Nazir Husain on 3.5.1969. In the case of Ganga Ram v. SmT. There is also no denial that the notice was served on Nazir Husain on 3.5.1969. In the case of Ganga Ram v. SmT. Phulwati, 1970 A.L.J. 336 a Full Bench of this Court took the view that where a notice was sent by registered post and came back with the endorsement 'refused' made by the postal authorities the mere endorsement is sufficient in the eye of law to justify the presumption of service of notice on the addressee. The notice of demand dated 29.4.1969 was thus duly served on Nazir Husain on 3.5.1969. Having regard to the fact that the notice was served on 3.5.1969 it would be deemed that the contents of the notice and not the envelope alone were served on Nazir Husain. Such a view finds support by the observation made in the case of Shri Nath v. Smt. Sarswati Devi Jaiswal, AIR 1964 Allahabad 52. In that case Mr. Justice S.D. Singh made the following observations : "Where a closed envelope is tendered to a person and he refused to accept delivery of the same, he. of course, has no knowledge of the contents of that envelope; but when he does not care to accept deli - very of the envelope, the law should impute knowledge of the contents thereof to him, and it is on that basis that refusal to accept delivery of a registered or unregistered notice is regarded as sufficient notice of the contents of the envelope to the addressee." It would thus be deemed that Nazir Husain knew about the contents of the notice and it was not for the petitioners to have proved the same. In the case of Amina Khatoon v. Zohra Bibi, AIR 1971 Allahabad 372 it was held as under : "it was not the duty of the landlord to prove that the tenant after having received notice, had actually read it and understood its con - tents". In both the cases, Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phulwati and Amina Khatoon v. Zohra Bibi (supra), service of notice was by refusal. In the case of Mohammadoo Khan v. Haji Ghulam Rasul, 1972 A.L.J. 320 Mr. Justice N.D. Ojha took a similar view with which I respectfully agree. In both the cases, Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phulwati and Amina Khatoon v. Zohra Bibi (supra), service of notice was by refusal. In the case of Mohammadoo Khan v. Haji Ghulam Rasul, 1972 A.L.J. 320 Mr. Justice N.D. Ojha took a similar view with which I respectfully agree. It was held in this case as under : " ...............that when the refusal of a notice sent by registered post amounts to service of the notice it means service of the contents of the notice and not the envelope containing it and once it is held that the contents of the notice came within the knowledge of the appellant there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant knew that the notice had been sent by his landlord making a demand of the arrears of rent." 5. From the above discussion it is manifestly clear that Nazir Husain was aware about the contents of the notice dated 29.4.1969 wherein the rent was demanded failing which he would be deemed to be a defaulter within the meaning of section 3(l)(a) of the Act and liable to ejectment. Further the petitioners while replying to the notice dated 16.5.1969 on 22.5.1909 had succinctly mentioned that Smt. Bismillah Begam was the sole owner and also specifically mentioning about the sending of the notice dated 29.4.1969 which came back with the endorsement 'refused'. Still Nazir Husain chose to frustrate the payment of rent to Smt. Bismillah Begam, petitioner No. 1, by depositing the same under section 7 - C(2) of the Act. The deposit' of rent under section 7 - C can be made only in two circumstances, firstly, when a landlord refuses to accept rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant in respect of the portion let out to him as enjoined in section 7 - C(l) and, secondly, where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-section (2) of section 7 - C in respect of such accommodation. On depositing the rent under section 7 - C(2) of the Act by Nazir Husain the Munsif, Moradabad, ordered that the applicants were permitted to deposit the rent at their own risk without prejudice to the rights of the parties. On depositing the rent under section 7 - C(2) of the Act by Nazir Husain the Munsif, Moradabad, ordered that the applicants were permitted to deposit the rent at their own risk without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The respondent No. 1 took the view that in view of the deposit having been made on 2.6.1969 the arrears of rent claimed by means of the notice of demand would be deemed to have been paid to the landlord in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of section 7 - C. No doubt Nazir Husain had tendered the rent through money order some time in February 1969 which was allegedly refused by petitioner No. 1 but no deposit under section 7 - C was then made and meanwhile the notice dated 29.4.1969 was sent signifying willingness to accept the rent. However, there is nothing on record to show that the landlord ever refused to accept the rent. Once the demand had been made it clearly signified the intention of the landlord to accept the rent and a deposit under section 7 - C of the Act thereafter would not protest the tenant. In the instant case the deposit had been made under section 7 - C(2) of the Act and as such it cannot be deemed that the payment had been made to the landlord within the postulates of section 7 - C(6) of the Act. An identical controversy arose in the case of Mohammadoo Khan v. Haji Gulam Rasul (supra) where it was held that once a notice in writing demanding the rent due had been sent it signified the willingness of the landlord to accept the rent from the tenant. It was thus held :- "The notice of demand dated June 5, 1963 served on the appellant on June 12, 1963, was a notice in writing and signified the willingness of the landlord to accept rent from the tenant. In this view of the matter neither of the two ingredients of section 7 - C which could entitle the tenant to make a deposit under the said section were present after June 12, 1963 and the deposit made under the said section on July 11, 1963 could not save the appellant from being defaulter in the payment of rent." 6. In view of the discussions above both the courts below materially erred in the appreciation of law and committed a manifest error of law inviting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and their orders are liable to be quashed, The suit of the plaintiffs is thus liable to be decreed with costs throughout. 7. In the result the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. The judgments and orders dated 6.8.1974 and 19.11.1973 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively are quashed. The suit of the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 stands decreed with costs. The said respondents are, however, allowed one month's time from today to vacate the accommodation in dispute failing which they shall be liable to be evicted through the process of law.