Shiv Nath Katju, J. - (1.) The applicant Dr. Sachchidanand Swaroop is a tenant of "Kanhaiya Building" situate at Agra which is owned by the second opposite party Sri Radha Govind Chandra Devji Birajman Temple at Barsana, Tahsil Chhatta, district Mathura. The applicant made an application u/S. 7 -C(2) of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) alleging that the premises in question are the property of Sri Radha Govind Chandra Devji Birajman Temple and the trustees of opposite party No. 2 had wrongfully transferred it to one Keshan Singh by a deed of sale. The aforesaid transfer was said to be void u/S. 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) (Temporary Powers) Act, 1962. The applicant prayed that in view of the aforesaid void transfer in favour of Keshari Singh he should be permitted to deposit the amount of rent in court u/S. 7 -C(2) of the Act. By an order dated 3 -8 -1968 the learned Munsif allowed the application and permitted the applicant to deposit the rent in court. Thereafter, an application was made for the review of the aforesaid order. The court below allowed the review application on the ground that there was no dispute between Keshari Singh and the trustees about the right to collect rent from the applicant and, therefore, it could not be said that there was a bonafide doubt or dispute within the meaning of S. 7 -C(2) of the Act. It therefore, set aside the order dated 3 -8 -1968 and rejected the applicant's application for being allowed to deposit the rent in court. The applicant has filed an appellate order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra dated January 6, 1971, and it has been admitted by me. It shows that the aforesaid sale in favour of Keshari Singh has been held to be invalid. It appears that the transfer in favour of Keshari Singh is void and he has no right to realise rent from the applicant. The court below has expressed the view that for some time the applicant had paid rent to Keshari Singh. Further more, it has observed that since there was no dispute between Keshari Singh and his transferor trustees, therefore, it could not be said that any bonafide doubt or dispute had arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive rent from the applicant. The expression "any bonafide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to any rent" in S. 7 -C of the Act is not restricted to any dispute between rival claimants to receive rent from the tenant. The expression also relates to doubt which might be genuinely entertained by the tenant as to the person who is entitled to receive rent from him. If he bonafide entertains a doubt about the right of a person claiming to realise rent from him then he can claim the benefit of S. 7 -C(2) of the Act. In the present case, it may be that the applicant paid rent for some time to Keshari Singh, but if he genuinely entertained a doubt about the right of Keshari Singh to realise rent from him then he can claim the benefit of S. 7 -C(2) of the Act. In the present case, it may be that the applicant paid rent for some time to Keshari Singh, but if he genuinely entertained a doubt about the right of Keshari Singh to realise rent from him irrespective of the fact that the letters transferors had not raised any dispute as against the claim of Keshari Singh, that by itself will not disentitle the applicant from seeking protection u/S. 7 -C(2) of the Act. I allow the revision, set aside the order of the court below and restore the aforesaid order passed by the learned Munsif dated 3 -8 -1968. I make no order as to costs.;