JUDGMENT S.D. Aggarwal, J. - This and the connected writ petition No. 4508 of 1981 arise out of the same suit No. 9 of 1978 filed by Chattar Sain against Om Prakash and Narain Dass. Chattar Sa. in is the landlord. Om Prakash and Narain Dass are the tenants. The property in dispute is a shop. The suit was filed on the basis of default and on the ground that the tenant had made material alterations in the property in dispute. 2. The trial court held that the tenants were not defaulters but was of the view that they had made material alterations in the tenanted property and, consequently, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 20th February, 1980. Against the judgment dated 20th February, 1980, two revisions were filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, one by the tenants and the other by the landlord. The tenants' revision was numbered as S. C. C. Revision No. 16 of 1980 and the landlords' revision was numbered as S.C.C. revision 23 of 1980. Both these revisions were dismissed by the revisional court by its order dated 4th December, 1980. The revisional court held that the tenants could not be evicted on the ground of having made material alterations in the property in dispute, but they were held to be defaulters. Writ petition No. 239 of 1981 has been filed by the tenants and writ petition No. 4508 of 1981 has been filed by the landlord. Both these petitions have been filed against the same judgment and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. In so far as writ No. 4508 is concerned, the revisional court has recorded a finding that only an intervening wall has been removed and three shops have been made into two shops. It has further recorded a finding that material alterations have not diminished the value. The material alterations have neither affected the utility of the shop nor the shop has been disfigured. In view of this findings, it cannot be said that the revisional court was wrong in holding that the tenants cannot be evicted on the ground of having made material structural alterations in the property in dispute. In the circumstances, so far as writ No. 4508 of 1981 is concerned, it has no merits. 4. In view of this findings, it cannot be said that the revisional court was wrong in holding that the tenants cannot be evicted on the ground of having made material structural alterations in the property in dispute. In the circumstances, so far as writ No. 4508 of 1981 is concerned, it has no merits. 4. In regard to the tenants' petition, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revisional court has wrongly held the tenants to be defaulters in the eye of law. The view taken by the revisional court is manifestly erroneous. 5. It is not disputed that the tenants had deposited the entire rent from 1st January 1963, to 28th February 1977, in proceedings under section 7C of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act). The view taken by the court below is that after 15th July, 1972, when the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) came into existence, the deposit made by the tenants under section 7C of the old Act was wholly invalid and it cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing payment of rent to the landlord. In this view of the matter, it has been held that the tenants are defaulters. 6. Sub section (1) of section 7C of the old Act, which is relevant for the purpose of decision of the present petition, is quoted below :- "7-C(1). When a landlord refuses 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 the tenant his willingness to accept." The above provision clearly states if the landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him when 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 the tenant his willingness to accept the same. From this provision, it is, consequently, clear that the proceedings under section 7C of the old Act or deposit of rent continued and shall conclude only when the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to except rent. The consent was not sent by the landlord and, consequently, the proceedings, which commenced before the coming into force of the new Act, did not conclude at all. 7. Section 43 of the new Act deals with repeal and savings of the provisions of the Old Act. Section 43 (1) (e) of the new Act is relevant. It read as under : "43 (1)(e). Any proceeding immediately before the commencement of this Act in the court of Munsif under section 7C of the old Act shall be continued and concluded in accordance with the old act which shall, for that purpose, be deemed to be in force." 8. This provision clearly lays down that till the proceedings under section 7C of the old Act are concluded, the old Act will continue to apply to the deposits made by the tenant and the old Act shall be deemed to continue for the said purpose. In the instant case, the proceedings were commenced prior to the coming into force of the new Act. The proceedings under section 7C of the old Act did not conclude because the landlord did not signify by notice in writing his willingness to accept the rent and, consequently, the proceedings under section 7C of the old Act could not be deemed to be concluded. Since the proceedings under section 7C of the old Act could not be deemed to be concluded, they were saved by section 43(l)(e) of the new Act, quoted above, and, consequently, any deposit made by the tenant under section 7C of the old Act and the deposit having continued to be made under the old Act would be valid deposits for the purpose of ascertaining whether the tenant was a defaulter or not. In the circumstances, the view taken by the revisional court, to the contrary, is manifestly erroneous. The tenants were entitled to the adjustment of the amount which they had already deposited under section 7C of the old Act even for the period after 15th July, 1972. In the circumstances, the view taken by the revisional court, to the contrary, is manifestly erroneous. The tenants were entitled to the adjustment of the amount which they had already deposited under section 7C of the old Act even for the period after 15th July, 1972. If that amount is considered, the tenants cannot be held to be defaulters, and, consequently, the decree for ejectment passed against the tenants was an invalid decree. 9. In the result, writ petition No. 239 of 1981 is allowed. The decree for ejectment passed against the petitioner tenants is set aside. The rest of the decree shall stand. Writ petition No. 4508 of 1981 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in both the petitions.