JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - The short question involved in this civil revision is, whether or not the amount deposited by a tenant under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) can be accepted as security under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, in the event, the defendant judgmentdebtor applies for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. 2. The revisionist is a defendant in the suit filed by the opposite parties for his eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. It appears that some dispute arose between the parties, as a result of which under an order dated 16.3.1985 passed by Munsif, Gonda on an application moved by the present revisionist under. Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972, he was allowed to deposit rent in court without prejudice to the rights of the parties. It is said that the revisionist continued to make deposits. Later on a notice dated 1911987 was given to the present revisionist saying that the revisionist was in arrears of rent for the period from 141983 to 31121986 at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. According to the revisionist, he had sent a reply which was, however, not received by the plaintiff opposite party, who ultimately filed a suit for eviction being S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1987. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that a written statement was also filed resisting the claim made in the plaint. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 291988 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Gonda. The order says that the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 4040 as arrears of rent and ejectment is decreed with ex pane costs. The claim for damages pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 100 was also decreed subject to payment of courtfee. 3. According to the revisionist, he had deposited entire amount as required under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 in the trial court and the same was held in deposit on the date the ex parte decree was passed. According to the revisionist, the case was fixed on 2281988 but the lawyers were on strike on that date, hence the case could not be taken up. According to the revisionist, the case was fixed on 2281988 but the lawyers were on strike on that date, hence the case could not be taken up. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the applicant was informed of the next date fixed as 891988 orally but the ex parte decree was passed on 291988 i.e. before the date of which he was informed. 4. An application for accepting the deposits made by the revisionist under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 as security was moved under proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for moving an application for setting aside ex parte decree. The said application was rejected by order dated 1991988 by the trial Court. The trial Court while rejecting the application has, as a matter of fact, found that the deposits made by the revisionist come to Rs. 7, 349.70, which are more than the amount due to the plaintiff under the ex parte decree which comes to Rs. 6,738.75, but the trial court refused to accept the said deposit as Security under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as the amount was deposited under protest challenging the rate of rent. Thus it was not an unconditional deposit. 5. On behalf of the revisionist, it has been submitted that the amount deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was still in deposit and it should have been accepted as security under the proviso to Section 17(1) of (he Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the deposit made by the revisionist under Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 was a conditional deposit as the revisionist had challenged the rate of rent; therefore, the deposit could not be treated as a security. He has further submitted that the revisionist could withdraw the amount deposited b him and could deposit it for compliance of Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a case reported in 1987 AWC 354 , Badi Uzzaman v. District Judge, Kanpur and others and referred to the observations made in paras 20 and 24 of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a case reported in 1987 AWC 354 , Badi Uzzaman v. District Judge, Kanpur and others and referred to the observations made in paras 20 and 24 of the judgment. In that case, it was held that the deposits made under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act could be taken benefit of for the purposes of Section 39 of Act No. 13 of 1972. Reliance was also placed, in the said judgment, upon a decision reported in 1982 (I) ARC 16, Sant Ram Gupta v. Ratan Prakash Gara, wherein it was held that the decretal amount deposited under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act can be utilised for the purposes of compliance of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. On the basis of the analogy of the two decisions mentioned above, it has been submitted that there should not be any bar to accept the deposits made under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 as security under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It has further been submitted that the amounts deposited under the two provisions indicated above are interchangeable. 7. To appreciate the point raised, it may first be seen, what is the purpose for which the decretal amount or security in lieu thereof is required to be deposited as condition precedent to entertain an application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by Judge Small Cause Court. Clearly, the purpose is that so long the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is not disposed of, the decretal amount or the security should be at the disposal of. the court, so that in case the application for setting aside ex parte decree is dismissed, the decree may be satisfied from the amount deposited or from the security furnished by the judgment debtor. In this connection, observations made in a case reported in 1981 ALJ 989, Smt. Krishna Den v. Shobha Chandra, can be beneficially noted. 8. The trial court has attached much importance to the fact that the amount in deposit was not an unconditional deposit as the same was deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 under protest, challenging the rate of rent. As a matter of fact, it is here that the trial court has misdirected itself. 8. The trial court has attached much importance to the fact that the amount in deposit was not an unconditional deposit as the same was deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 under protest, challenging the rate of rent. As a matter of fact, it is here that the trial court has misdirected itself. The question of conditional deposit under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 has no relevance for the purposes of consideration of question whether the deposit could be accepted as security, if so offered, under proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Without recording any finding, whether the deposit made was conditional or unconditional, it may be observed that so far the prayer for taking this deposit as security is concerned, there was no condition attached to it for the purposes of treating it as security under Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It cannot be said that any condition was attached for that purpose. The question whether it was a conditional deposit or not, under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, would be a matter for consideration while disposing of the case on merits as well as the effect of such a deposit. The amount in deposit, in the court is more than the amount as decreed under ex parte decree. In case the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is dismissed, the decretal amount can very well be realised from the deposit for which a request was made to take it as security under proviso to Section 17(1) pf the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. No doubt it has been mentioned in the application, moved for accepting the amount in deposit as security, that the said amount was deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act No, 13 of 1972, under protest, but no condition has been attached for accepting it as security; rather the prayer is that the amount of Rs. 7, 349.70 which the applicant had deposited, may be treated as security. In this connection, it may also be observed that as soon as the decree has been passed and so long it subsists the dispute as regards rate of rent will also be taken to have been decided by the ex parte decree, decreeing the rent at the rate of Rs. In this connection, it may also be observed that as soon as the decree has been passed and so long it subsists the dispute as regards rate of rent will also be taken to have been decided by the ex parte decree, decreeing the rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month as claimed by the plaintiff opposite party. After a decree had been passed accepting the rate of rent as claimed by the plaintiff, it could not be said that out of the deposit made, only an amount at the rate of Rs. 40 per month as claimed by the defendant revisionist, could only be realised. The amount in deposit is also more than the amount decreed at the rate of Rs. 100 per month as rent. In the above circumstances, the trial court manifestly erred, when it thought that the security of the amount deposited could not be accepted as it was a conditional deposit. 9. The trial court has observed that the defendant can take back the amount once ex parte decree is set aside, but such amount cannot be withdrawn by the plaintiff under Order XV Rule 5 CPC unless specific order is passed. No specific order for amount in question can be passed because still it is said to be a deposit under protest. The above ground given by the trial court for not accepting the request for taking the said amount as security is not sustainable. It has already been observed that once a decree has been passed at the rate of rent as claimed by the plaintiff, the question of dispute about the rate of rent ceased to exist. Whole amount under the decree can be realised from the security offered by the defendantrevisionist. In case ex parte decree is set aside, the character of the deposit as security will also cease and it would again be treated as amount deposited under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and under Order XV Rules 5 CPC, if any amount has been deposited under that provision. If under the law, the defendant is entitled to withdraw such a amount, he will certainly be liable to face the consequences which may flow in view of the provisions contained U/S 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and Order XV Rule 5 CPC. If under the law, the defendant is entitled to withdraw such a amount, he will certainly be liable to face the consequences which may flow in view of the provisions contained U/S 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and Order XV Rule 5 CPC. Consideration of such a situation or condition at this stage, as a matter of fact does not arise. 10. I find no merit in the submission made by the opposite party that the revisionist could withdraw the amount and redeposit the same U/S 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Such an exercise would be wholly unnecessary. Once the amount was still in deposit with the court, it could easily be adjusted for satisfying the ex parte decree in case it was not set aside. In this connection, a case reported in 1984 ALJ 189, Lachhi Ram v. First Additional District Judge, Meerut and others may be referred. In that case, the deposits were made under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On setting aside the ex parte decree, it was applied on the first date of hearing that the deposits already made under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act may be considered for extending the benefit of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. It was held that if the conditions of Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are fulfilled, the deposit made under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act can be taken into account for extending benefit under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. II was farther held that so long the amount was in deposit and was available, it is immaterial it was made in one capacity or the other. The relevant passage may be quoted as follows: Therefore, there is no charm or magic whether deposit was made in one capacity or the others so long it is deposited with Court before first date of hearing. The relevant passage may be quoted as follows: Therefore, there is no charm or magic whether deposit was made in one capacity or the others so long it is deposited with Court before first date of hearing. If from circumstances it appears the tenant in order to save himself from misery of eviction was bona fide depositing or had deposited and complied with stringent and harsh conditions provided in subsection (4) then he should not be denied the benefit on one or the other pretext by finding loopholes due to mistake in not making the application or not withdrawing the deposit u/s 17 and then redepositing it under subsection (4). The word deposit should not be construed in pedantic manner. It should be understood and interpreted so as to advance the object of the provision. The amount deposited u/s 17 exhausted its purpose once ex parte decree was set aside and it became deposit with Court. 11. Though the above case was in relation to a situation where the amount deposited under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was to be taken into account as payments made under the provisions of Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, but what is clear is that even though the amount may have been deposited under some other provisions and it was available with the court for the purposes of satisfying the decretal amount under the ex parte decree, the same could very well be accepted as security under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 12. It is thus clear that the prayer of the applicant for treating, the amount already deposited in court, as security under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was not at all conditional. In case the ex parte decree is not set aside, the decretal amount can very well be satisfied from the said deposit. It was not at all necessary to deposit the amount twice. The question whether the deposit under Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 was conditional or not and what would be the effect of conditional deposit under the said provision, was not at all relevant at the present stage. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 13. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party then urged that no revision against the order impugned would lie as it was only an application for permission to treat the amount already in deposit as security instead of depositing the amount in cash; therefore, it does net amount to decision of a case. In this connection, it may be observed that the effect of rejecting the application for treating the amount already in deposit as security brings the matter to an end and attaches finality to the ex parte decree for noncompliance of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In a case where judgment debtor does not deposit the decretal amount in cash, he has to move an application for permission to furnish security in place of cash deposit for complying with the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Rejection of such an application finally disposes of the matter rendering the ex parte decree final. In this view of the matter, it cannot be successfully canvassed that no revision would lie against such an order. 14. In the result, the revision succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the trial court dated 1991988 refusing to accept the amount already in deposit as security under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to dispose of the application in the light of the observation made in this judgment and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 15. There would, however, be no order as to costs. (Revision allowed)