Tenant does not need to offer rental payment before making a deposit under S.7 - C(2) of the Act if there is a bona fide dispute regarding the rightful recipient.

1. This is a second appeal filed by the defendant - appellant against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court decreeing a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages after setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit.

2. The house, in respect of which the suit was filed and of which the defendant - appellant is a tenant, belongs to a waqf. The father of the plaintiff - respondent was the mutwalli of the waqf. On the death of the father, according to the plaintiff - respondent, he and his brother (Rafiqual Qadar) became mutwallis and used to manage the property. The appellant was admittedly the tenant of this house on a monthly rent of Rs. 4. There was a litigation in the year 1948 regarding the recovery of rent in respect of this house but it ended in favour of the appellant, the Court finding that no amount was due from the appellant as he had deposited all the rent due from him. Later, it appears that a suit under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by some of the beneficiaries of the waqf for the removal of Rafiqual Qadar from mutwalliship and for taking accounts from him. In 1957 that suit was decreed by the District Judge, Rafiqual Qadar was removed and the plaintiff - respondent was appointed mutwalli.

3. On September 26, 1961. the plaintiff respondent sent a notice to the appellant, terminating the tenancy and demanding payment of arrears of rent Subsequently, on November 21, 1961, the respondent sent a fresh notice to the appellant, again terminating the tenancy, demanding arrears of rent due till then and requiring the appellant to vacate the house within one month. This notice was served on the appellant on November 23, 1961. On December 16, 1961, the appellant filed an application under S.7 - C (2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for depositing the rent due from him from September, 1958 to November, 1961, in Court. The Munsif, before whom the application was made, permitted the appellant to deposit the rent and on December 19, 1961, the appellant deposited the entire rent in Court. Thereafter he continued to deposit regularly the rent as it fell due. Ignoring this deposit, the respondent, on February 13, 1962, filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for ejectment, arrears of rent and for damages. The suit was filed under S.3 (1) (a) of the Act on the allegation that the appellant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and had failed to pay the same to the respondent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand. The main defence to the suit was that the entire amount of rent due had been paid by depositing in Court.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant had validly made the deposit under S.7 - C (2) of the Act and that, consequently, the provisions of S.3 (1) (a) of the Act were not attracted. The lower appellate Court took the view that the respondent was entitled to a decree for ejectment as the deposit was not in accordance with the provisions of S.7 - C (2) of the Act. It held that, before making the deposit, the appellant had not offered to pay the arrears of rent to the respondent which was a condition precedent to the applicability of the provisions of S.7 - C (2). This view of the lower appellate Court is based on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ahmad Ali v. Mohamad Jamaluddin , 1963 All LJ 567 : (AIR 1963 All. 581). This case has been referred to this Full Bench by a Division Bench on the ground that Ahmad Ali's case r