D.L. MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner who is present him self in the court. 2. This revision petition directed against the order dated 10.7.87 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 3. It is necessary to narrate some facts of the case for the proper appreciation of law. 4. Plaintiff instituted a suit against the tenant on the grounds mentioned in Section-13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950. During the pendency of the suit section 13-A of the Act was inserted for the benefit of the tenants. Clause (b) of Section-13A reads as under:- "In every such proceeding the Court shall on the application of the tenant made with in 30 days from the date of commencement of the amending ordinance notwithstanding any order to the contrary determine the amount of rent in arrears upto the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at 6% per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the land-lord; and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the Court; and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid the proceeding shall be disposed of as if tenant had not committed any default". The tenant deposited the amount of Rs. 5,185/- during the period falling between 1.9.74 and 30.10.84 from time to time. 5. Mr. B. L. Mandhana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that it is not easy to withdraw the amount from the Court and sometimes the landlords have to spend 15 to 20% of the amount so deposited in favour of the landlord. This type of complaint was received also by me when I had the opportunity to visit Jaipur Bar in connection with some other programmes. 6. To avoid this difficulty this Court has directed that ordinarily a practice of depositing the rent in Bank should be adopted to avoid disputes between the landlord and the tenant and the harassment of the landlord as well as the tenant. Further amounts should be deposited at the place of the residence of the defendant or when the property is situated in the account of the landlord. Further amounts should be deposited at the place of the residence of the defendant or when the property is situated in the account of the landlord. The landlord or the tenant may apply to the Court for the direction that the tenant should in future deposit the amount directly in the account of the landlord and the landlord will give account number of the Bank which is in the vicinity of the place where the building is situated or just nearby the place where the premises are situated. However, the problem is about the refund of the old arrears which have accumulated in the trial court and the problem of the landlords is that they have to spend huge amount in withdrawing their amount as there is complaint that the paper does not move with-out weight. Honble Chief Justice may be requested to ensure that refunds are made immediately. We are duty-bound to deliver Justice and the expenses of 15 to 20% which are unaccounted expenses reflects adversely on the system of working of our subordinate court. 7. From the perusal of the account it seems that before the determination and after the determination under section-13A of the Act, the tenant has deposited the amount in the past. Trial Court held that the amount cannot be adjusted as the receipts were not produced by the tenant. Ordinarily it is expected from the Court that when it is deposited in the court a note should be made in the file itself that the tenant has deposited the amount and the tenant should not be asked ordinarily to produce the receipts of the amount which he has deposited in 1974 or thereafter; after a lapse of 8-10 years it will be difficult for the tenant and particularly those tenants who are illiterate or semi-illiterate. When the amount is deposited in the court one receipt is kept for the Court, one receipt is kept by the Bank and one receipt is given to the tenant. Thus, the receipts which are received by the Court must be used for that case as it bears the case number and names of the parties also. The Bank forwards two receipts one for the use of the Treasury and the other for the use of the Court. 8. Mr. Thus, the receipts which are received by the Court must be used for that case as it bears the case number and names of the parties also. The Bank forwards two receipts one for the use of the Treasury and the other for the use of the Court. 8. Mr. Mandhana appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited my attention to the case of Ram Sewak vs. Manna Lal (1). Their Lordships were considering the provisions of Section 6 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947). S. 7C of the Act reads as under: "7C—Payment by Deposit of Rent—(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. (2) Whereby any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-sec. (1) in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may similarly deposit the rent seating 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 court, or by the settlement between the parties, continue to deposit, in like manner, the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building. (3) The deposit referred to in sub-sec. (1) or (2) shall be made in the Court of the Munsiff having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. (4) On any deposit being made under sub-sec. (1) the Court shall cause a notice of deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in this behalf. (5) When a deposit has been made under sub-sec. (2) the amount of the deposit shall be held by the court for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the same shall be payable to such person." 9. (5) When a deposit has been made under sub-sec. (2) the amount of the deposit shall be held by the court for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the same shall be payable to such person." 9. The U.P. Act provides that when a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant in respect of any accommodation to the tenant made in the prescribed manner deposit such rent and continue to deposit any subsequent rent unless the landlord signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept. Thus, under section-7C of the U.P. Act there is a prohibition by implication against the deposit of the amount by the tenant in the court unless the condition regarding refusal of the rent by the landlord is fulfilled. Under clause (b) of Section-13A there is an option which enables the tenant to deposit the same in the court without any pre-condition of refusal by the landlord. 10. There are two opinions under section-13A that the tenant may pay the rent or the arrears to the landlord or deposit the same in the Court. Even if he pays arrears, there is a provision under Section-13A that if the tenant submits an application then the arrears shall be determined and then the tenant shall pay the amount due to the landlord or deposit the same in the Court. Thus, the option lies with the tenant under the Act of 1950. 13. Section-13 of the Act of 1950 is also relevant for the purpose of interpreting the law of Rajasthan, which is different from the law of U.P. Clause (3) of Section-13 provides that the amount determined or the arrears shall be paid to the landlord or shall be deposited in the Court. Thus, from the perusal of law I am of the view that the provisions of the U.P. Act of 1947 and the provisions of Rajasthan Act of 1950 are not similar, but, stand on different footing. For this reason the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act of 1947 cannot be applied with full force looking to the dissimilar provisions of the law. For this reason the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act of 1947 cannot be applied with full force looking to the dissimilar provisions of the law. The Act of 1950 was enacted as the preamble indicates, in the interest of general public, for the regulation of letting of and rent and to check the arbitrary and unbridled powers of the landlord in the matter of eviction of tenants to get exorbitant rent. The law imposes a condition on the landlord to take or receive for admitting a tenant to any premium over and above the rent payable by him. Apart from that the scheme and structure of the policy discriminable from the provisions of the Act is to give maximum benefit permissible under the law within a reasonable compass to the tenant and to put a check on the unbridled and arbitrary powers of the landlord. The law should be interpreted for the benefit of those for whose benefit it has been enacted and it is not necessary that there should be a specific provision for every act of the tenant. The law does not prohibit the payment of rent or arrears in the court by way of deposit on the contrary, it enables the tenant to deposit the rent as interpreted above. 12. The law of Rajasthan and the law of U.P. differ on this point. Under the U.P. law refusal of the landlord is a condition precedent before depositing the rent in the Court, but, under the Rajasthan law there is no necessity for that particularly during the pendency of the litigation and the option has been given to the tenant either to pay to the landlord or to deposit the same in the Court. It is the duty of the Court to see that the rent so deposited is paid to the landlord without unreasonable delay. But, without any application and even without a prayer, it is the duty of the court to prepare the refund bill of the past payment and to make payment of the lump sum if there is no dispute about the right of the landlord. 13. The Court has already directed that in future the landlord should declare his account number of the Bank and the tenant should deposit the same in the Bank. 13. The Court has already directed that in future the landlord should declare his account number of the Bank and the tenant should deposit the same in the Bank. This will also reduce the work of the Court and harassment of the landlord. The grievance of the litigants about the image and the functioning of the lower courts that without weight the paper does (sic not) move, will also be not there to the counsel who make such grievance before the Court. 14. In the result, I find that the court below was justified in passing the order dated, 10.7.87. The revision petition fails. However, it is directed that the learned Additional District Judge shall get the refund bills prepared and see that the payment is made within two months to the landlord. No application of the landlord shall be necessary for the preparation of the bill and it is the duty of the Court to prepare the bill and send it to the Treasury and get them passed. 15. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.