JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-National Cadet Corps 30 U.P. Battalion, Bijnor through its Commanding Officer, district Bijnor and also by the State of U.P. through Collector, District Bijnor challenging the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Revisional Court and the judgment and order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court in SCC Suit No. 10 of 2015 (Smt. Kanti Sharma and others vs. National Cadet Corps 30 U.P. Battalion). 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is the tenant of the said property since 1964, which was let out by its original owner late Babu Ram Sharma, who expired in the year 1994 leaving behind seven sons and two daughters. The first son was Satyaveer Sharma and the second was Dharamveer Sharma. Satyaveer Sharma continued to take rent from petitioner No. 1 upto 30.01.2013. 3. It has been alleged that on the basis of an oral partition between the successors of late Babu Ram Sharma, Dharamveer Sharma, the husband of plaintiff No. 1 received the eastern part of the property situated in Civil Lines, Bijnor including the tenanted premises of the petitioners. On the basis of this oral partition in January, 2013, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, sent a legal notice to the tenant regarding ownership of the property and payment of rent. The petitioner No. 1 sought legal opinion from the D.G.C. (Civil), Bijnor. On the basis of the legal opinion dated 22.01.2013, the rent of the disputed property came to be deposited under section 30 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, (herein-after referred to as the "U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972"). The petitioners also received notice on 16.06.2014 from one Shri Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of one Parmarth Marketing Pvt. Ltd. claiming themselves to be the landlord and asking for payment of rent. The petitioners on the advise of D.G.C. (Civil), Bijnor continued to pay rent in Court under section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 regularly and without any default. On 19.12.2014, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sent a legal notice for terminating of tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. The petitioners on the advise of D.G.C. (Civil), Bijnor continued to pay rent in Court under section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 regularly and without any default. On 19.12.2014, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sent a legal notice for terminating of tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. The petitioners sent their reply on 29.12.2014 giving them details of rent being deposited under section 30 (2) of the Act in Misc. proceedings in the court concerned. In the suit filed thereafter namely the SCC Suit No. 10 of 2015 by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also a written statement was filed, wherein again the fact was mentioned that the rent was being deposited regularly under section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and an affidavit to this effect was also filed by Colonel Sandeep Sen, and the tenant's/defendant's witnesses were also examined. 4. On 06.10.2017, the learned Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on the ground of non-payment of rent. The learned Trial Court observed that in terms of the notice dated 19.12.2014 terminating the tenancy after 30 days, and asking for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 2550/- per month, the continued deposit of rent by the tenant under section 30 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 could not be countenanced. The Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972 was inapplicable as it was admitted by the tenant that he was paying rent of more than Rs. 2000/- per month. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court on 06.10.2017, petitioner No. 1 filed SCC Revision No. 10 of 2017, which was also rejected on 17.01.2018 observing that since the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the premises in question, rent could not have been deposited under section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also observed on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court that the premises being not covered by the Rent Control Act, tenancy is terminable by a single notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. It was also observed on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court that the premises being not covered by the Rent Control Act, tenancy is terminable by a single notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. After SCC Suit was filed before the Judge, Small Causes Court there was no reason for continuing to deposit rent under section 30 of the Act and reference was made to a decision of this Court in Khursheeda Begam and others vs. Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 2004 AllLJ 31, that after the suit for eviction was filed, rent deposited by the defendants under section 30 of the Act is not a valid deposit of rent. The learned District Judge has observed that the defendants after coming to know that the plaintiffs are landlord of the tenanted premises deliberately did not pay rent to the plaintiffs, but deposited it in Court, and therefore, made a default in payment of rent and thus, the Revision was liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though rent was being deposited under section 30 of the Act on some misconceived legal advise, there was no doubt about the bona fide of the petitioner No. 1. In fact an application was made by the plaintiff-landlord in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2013 for withdrawal of such rent, but the same was rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor on 10.03.2017. He has placed the order passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bijnor in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2013 before this Court, wherein the objections of the plaintiff-landlord regarding such deposit of rent by the petitioners were also set aside by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC, there is a similar provision for deposit of rent in Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC, there is a similar provision for deposit of rent in Court. He has also referred to Order XXIV Rules 1 and 2, and he says that although section 30 deposit may not be considered by the learned Trial Court, the fact remains that a rent was being deposited since January, 2013 upto the date of passing of the impugned order in Court, although in a different proceeding in a different Court, and the bona fide of the tenant could not be questioned on this ground, nor it could be held that there was a default in payment of rent by the learned Judge Small Causes Court, nor the Revision of petitioner No. 1 could not have been rejected on this ground alone by the Prescribed Authority. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has pointed out a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Haider Abbas vs. Additional District Judge, reported in 2006 (24) LCD 452, wherein the Single Judge had found an apparent conflict in the view taken by this Court in several judgments and had referred the question to a larger Bench for decision as follows: "Whether the deposit made under section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 after the date of service of summons of a civil suit for arrears of rent can be taken into consideration for computing the deposit for the purpose of deciding the question whether the defence should or should not be struck off under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C.?" 10. The Division Bench had observed that there is a substantial difference between the deposits made in the first part of Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. and under second part of Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. Under the first part, the amount deposited under Section 30 can be deducted, whereas under the second part there is no provision for deduction of an amount already deposited. There is a specific requirement contained in the second part of the Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. relating to deposit of the monthly amount due from the continuation of the suit. There is a specific requirement contained in the second part of the Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. relating to deposit of the monthly amount due from the continuation of the suit. While depositing the amount at or before the first hearing of the suit, the tenant can deduct the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act, but the deposit of the monthly amount thereafter throughout the continuation of the suit must be made in the Court, where the suit is filed for eviction and recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation and the amount, if any, deposited under Section 30 of the Act cannot be deducted. 11. On the basis of the said judgment, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that after the suit was filed before the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, deposit under section 30 of the Act before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2013 could not have continued. The amount deposited in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2013 should have been withdrawn by the petitioners-tenants and deposited in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court under Order XV Rule 5(1) C.P.C., and thereafter, under second part, all rent as due should have continued to be deposited in the Court, where the suit was pending, which was not done. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has pointed out that whatever steps the petitioners have taken, were on the basis of legal advise of DGC (Civil), although ignorance of law cannot be considered as excuse. The bona fide of the tenant was established by the fact that till date of decision of the suit, the rent was being deposited in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2013, and there is no dispute about it. No litigant can stand to gain by an Act, which may be construed to prejudice his right of proper defence. In this case, the petitioners were given wrong advise, and therefore, they could not deposit rent under Order XV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. before the Judge Small Causes Court. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that although ignorance of law is no excuse, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another, reported in 1981 (2) SCC 788 , has observed that no litigant should be made to suffer because of the fault of the counsel. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that although ignorance of law is no excuse, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another, reported in 1981 (2) SCC 788 , has observed that no litigant should be made to suffer because of the fault of the counsel. In this case, the D.G.C (Civil) did not give proper advise to the petitioners. The petitioners were therefore, prejudiced due to the conduct of their counsel, as such there was no default on their part in payment of rent at any stage. There may have been arrears in rent but the tenant was not in arrears in payment thereof Since, there was a genuine dispute whether the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 or one Parmarth Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which had given notice to the petitioners on 16.06.2014 claiming the ownership over the suit property, were the owners and landlords of the property, the petitioners continued to deposit of rent under section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 14. This Court therefore is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned court below adjudicating default of rent on the part of the petitioners-tenants are liable to be set aside and are hence set aside. 15. The matter is remanded to the learned Judge Small Causes Court again for fresh decision. The petitioner No. 1 is directed to withdraw the amount already deposited in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2013 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor, and deposit the same on the first date of hearing along with interest of 9% and cost of litigation as determined by the learned Trial Court. 16. The petitioners shall make an application to the learned Trial Court to first determine the entire dues of rent along with 9% interest and cost of litigation. 17. The order passed on such an application shall be complied with forthwith by tenant-petitioner No. 1, which shall be considered by the learned Trial Court and appropriate orders be passed thereon in accordance with law thereafter. The tenant shall continue to deposit rent in court in compliance of second part of Order XV Rule 5(1), thereafter during pendency of the suit. 18. The tenant shall continue to deposit rent in court in compliance of second part of Order XV Rule 5(1), thereafter during pendency of the suit. 18. The respondents are free to take all grounds relating to valid determination of tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act of the tenants on giving of valid notice before the learned Trial Court. 19. This petition is allowed to this extent.