JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 4th November, 1976 dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.

2. This case has rather a chequered career and travelled through various stages and finally when it came to the High Court the case was remanded and after remand another revision petition was filed before the High Court which was heard by a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench as in his opinion a substantial question of law was involved in the case. When the case went before the Division Bench consisting of Pandit and B. S. Dhillon, JJ. the two Judges differed from each other and the case was referred to a third Judge, namely, Mittal, J. who agreed with Pandit, J. and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

3. In order to understand the point of law involved in this case, it may be necessary to give a brief resume of the facts leading to the appeal. It appears that the respondent-defendant was a tenant of a shop belonging to one Sher Singh and was situated in Gurgaon Cantonment. Sher Singh gave an application on 21-3-1967 under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the defendant-respondent for eviction from the shop on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of the rent and arrears for the period 9-11-1965 to 8-3-1967. Notice of the petition was also filed by the applicant on the 22nd March, 1967 and was actually served on the defendant on 22nd April, 1967. On the 29th April, 1967 the defendant made an application before the Senior Sub-Judge who was also the Rent Controller for depositing a sum of Rupees 179.48 being the rent along with interest due. The amount was however deposited before the Rent Controller on the 4th May, 1967. It appears that the first date of the hearing of the application was 11th May, 1967 on which date the Rent Controller made the following order:

"Present : Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, for the Petitioner; Mr. P. L. Kakkar, for the Respondent.

The respondents counsel Sh. P. L. Kakkar has been informed that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 179.48 paise on 4-5-67. Papers are filed".

Even before this date when the amount was actually deposited by the appellant, the Rent Controller had passed the following order :-

"Present : Sh. Shiv Narain, Petitioner.

The rent be deposited at the responsibility of the petitioner and after that notice be issued on payment of P. F. for the respondents for 11-5-67."

4. It is, therefore, manifest that in the instant case a deposit of the rent and the arrears along with interest had actually been made before the first date of hearing to the knowledge of the Court and the Court had acknowledged the fact of the deposit of the amount. Again, on the first date of hearing i.e. 11th May. 1967 the Rent Controller informed counsel for the applicant respondent that a sum of Rs. 179.48 had been deposited. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant respondent was apprised clearly of the fact that the amount in question had actually been deposited and was at his disposal and he could withdraw the same from the Court of the Rent Controller whenever he liked. Despite these facts, the Rent Controller held in its order dated the 2nd December, 1967 that the deposit was not made in accordance with the provisio to Section 13 (2) (i) of the Act, and, therefore, the appellant being a defaulter the application was allowed and ejectment was ordered. Thereafter, the appellant went up in appeal to the District Judge who was the Appellant Authority under the Act which differed from the view taken by the Rent Controller and by his Order dated 22nd February, 1968 having held that the deposit was valid dismissed the application filed by the respondent for evicting the appellant. Thereafter a revision was filed to the High Court which was remanded to the District Judge for deciding the case afresh, and pa