A tenant's failure to deposit or pay rent within the time specified in Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, without seeking condonation of delay or extension of time, attracts the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act, leading to the striking out of the defence against delivery of possession.

1. THIS revisional application is at the instance of the defendant and it is directed against an order dated April 24, 1981 passed by the learned Munsif of Raiganj in O. C. Suit no. 222 of 1977. Sm. Sudhangshu Bala mitra as plaintiff instituted the said suit on August 29, 1977. The writ of summons was served upon the defendant on September 20, 1977. The defendant appeared on September 26, 1977. The defendant filed his written statement on April 11, 1978. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on July 3, 1980. In this application the plaintiff sudhangshu Bala Mitra alleged that the defendant did not deposit or pay any amount referred to in Section 17 (1) or 17 (2) of the Act within the time specified therein. The defendant did not also pray for extension of time or instalment under sec. 17 (2a) of the Act and, as such the defence against delivery of possession was liable to be struck out under Sec. 17 (3) of the Act. Sudhangshu Bala Mitra died on December 12, 1980 and the opposite party was substituted in her place. On January 5, 1981 the defendant filed an objection against the application under Sec. 17 (3) of the Act. It was contended by the defendant that he had paid and deposited rents in time as specified in Sections 17 (1) and 17 (2)of the Act and, as such, there was no question for any extension of time under sec. 17 (2a) of the Act. The said application was heard by the learned Munsif and by the impugned order the learned munsif allowed the application under sec. 17 (3) of the Act. The defence against delivery of possession has been struck out. The learned Munsif held that the defendant was a tenant in nespect of the suit premises since 1969 in terms of the agreement (Exhibit 1. The defendant failed to pay the rent in accordance with the terms of agreement. The learned Munsif has further held that having regard to the circumstances as laid down in Secs. 17, 21, 22, 13 and other relevant Sections he has reason to believe that the defendant did not pay the rent in accordance with law. According to the learned Munsif, the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and the application under Sec. 17 (3) of the Act was allowed.

2. BEING aggrieved by the said decision, the defendant has come up to this court and obtained the present Rule. Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has argued that the learned Munsif was wrong in holding that after the institution of the suit the defendant was liable to pay rent within the time mentioned in the agreement (Ext. 1. Mr. Sengupta argues that the provisions of Sec. 17 (1) of the Act are independent of the other provisions of the Act regarding the time when rent is to be deposited during the pendency of the suit. In the agreement it was mentioned that each month's rent was to be paid within seven days of the next month. Mr. Sengupta argues that according to See. 4 of the Act rent shall be paid within the time fixed by the contract and in the absence of such contract by the 15th day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. Mr. Sengupta argues that Sec. 22 of the Act deals with the validity of rent deposited with the Bent Controller but once Sec. 17 of the Act comes into play, the provisions of Sees. 4 and 22 will not apply. Mr. Sengupta submits that the defendant deposited the rent with the Rent controller regularly and, as such, the application under Sec. 17 (3) should not have been allowed. Mr. Sengupta further submits that there was delay of a few days in depositing rent with the Rent controller during the pendency of the suit but having regard to the circumstances and the principles of law laid down in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma vs. Dharamdas (A. I. R. 1980 Supreme Court 587), the Court could have condoned the delay and extended the time.

3. THE learned Advocate for the opposite party has argued that the defendant did not file an appl