( 1 ) THIS reference to the Special Division Bench arises out of a Civil Revision Case relating to proceedings under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The opposite party landlord instituted a suit against the petitioner tenant on 14th September, 1960 for recovery of possession of premises No. 26/1/1c, Rupnarayan Nandan Lane, in P. S. Bhowanipur, Dist. 24 Parganas, on the ground in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The writ of Summons in the suit was served upon the tenant on 30th October, 1960 and the tenant entered appearance in the suit on 4th November, 1960. The tenant deposited with the Rent Controller the rent for the months of November and December 1960 on 14th December 1960 and 11th January 1961 respectively. On 17th January 1961 the tenant filed his written statement. On 27th January 1961 the landlord filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for striking out the defence of the tenant. On 10th March 1961 the tenant filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the Act for determination or adjustment of rent. The learned Munsif before whom the said applications came up for hearing by his order dated the 22nd March 1961 dismissed the application under Section 17 (2) on the ground that it is time-barred but allowed the application under Section 17 (3) and struck off the defence as against delivery of possession for non-compliance with Section 17 (1 ). The tenant has obtained a Rule against this order. This Rule came up for hearing before a Single Bench of this Court. The learned Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench in view of conflict of decisions on the points involved. Before the Division Bench consisting of Bachawat and Laik, JJ. the order so far as it related to Section 17 (2) was not challenged but only the order so far as it related to Section 17 (3) was challenged. The Division Bench felt that the Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin, (62 CWN 555) requires reconsideration in view of fundamental differences of opinion on the construction of Section 17 of the Act, and by their order dated 20th November 1962 referred this Revision Case to me under proviso (ii) to Rule 1 of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules for appropriate reference to a Special Division Bench. This Bench has been thereupon constituted for hearing the matter.

( 2 ) THE main question which falls for consideration is whether a deposit in the Rent Controller's Office, of rent becoming payable after a suit or proceeding for ejectment is instituted and the writ of summons is served, can be said to be "payment to the landlord" within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The provision which is called in aid of this argument is Section 22 (3) of the Act. So it is convenient to set out Section 22 at this stage which is as follows:-"22. Time-limit for making deposit and consequences of incorrect particulars in application for deposit (1) No rent deposited under Section 21 shall be considered to have been validly deposited under that Section for purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, unless deposited within fifteen days of the time fixed by the contract in writing for payment of the rent; or, in the absence of such contract in writing, unless deposited within the last day of the month following that for which the rent was payable. (2) No such deposit shall be considered to have been validly made for the purposes of the said clause if the tenant willfully or negligently makes any false statement in his application for depositing the rent, unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount deposited before the date of institution of a suit or proceeding for recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant. (3) If the rent is deposited within the time mentioned in sub-sect