JUDGMENT M.C. Ghose, J. - This is an application under sec. 115, C. P. C, by a transferee in a case under sec. 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Petitioner purchased an occupancy holding on 2nd May, 1936. Notice was served and the landlord made an application on 12th September, 1936, but the money was not deposited till two days later, i.e., on 14th September, 1936. The point taken in this Court by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is that though the application and the payment of the money were both within two months of the receipt of the notice, still as the money was not paid along with the application, there is no compliance with sub-sec. 38 C. W. N. 616 (1934) of sec. 26F and the petition ought to be rejected for non-compliance with that sub-section. That sub-section is in these terms: The application shall be dismissed, unless such landlord at the time of making it, deposits in Court the amount of the consideration money or the value of the property, as the case may be, as stated in the notice served on him, together with compensation at the rate of ten per cent, of such amount. 2. By sub-sec. 61 C. L. J. 27 (1930) the application may be made within two months of the service of the notice. Sub-sec. 38 C. W. N. 616 (1934) says that the deposit in Court is to be made at the time of the application. The earliest case was in 1930 [Sidheswari Prasad Roy Chowdhury v. Gendu Mia 61 C. L. J. 27 (1930) In that case D. N. Mitter, J., held that sub-sec. 38 C. W. N. 616 (1934) should be construed liberally and a short delay in the payment of the money should not be a bar. In that case, the application was filed on 14th February and the deposit was made on the next day, 15th February. The Court held that the application complied with the sub-section. The same view was held by Mallik, J., in 1934 in the case of Jatindra Kumar Chakraborty v. Chandra Kumar 38 C. W. N. 616 (1934). There the applicant had the challans ready but could not deposit the money till the next day. In 1935, Guha and Bartley, JJ. The Court held that the application complied with the sub-section. The same view was held by Mallik, J., in 1934 in the case of Jatindra Kumar Chakraborty v. Chandra Kumar 38 C. W. N. 616 (1934). There the applicant had the challans ready but could not deposit the money till the next day. In 1935, Guha and Bartley, JJ. In the case of Girish Chandra Ghose v. The Jadavpur Estate, Ltd. 39 C. W. N. 232 (1934) held that the sub-section should be construed strictly and dismissed the pre-emption application because there was a delay of one day in the deposit. They did not differ from the previous decision but distinguished that case. Upon considering the decided cases, it appears to me that it is right and proper to consider the actual difficulty in the way of depositing in Court the money. The application may be filed in Court but the deposit of the money requires a good many formalities. (1) The challis form has to be obtained and its upper portion filled up. Then it has to be taken to the Chief Ministerial officer and he checks it and signs it and thereafter it is to be taken to the Accountant who will date it and pass it. After that if the time is before 3 p. M., on an ordinary day or before 1 P. M., on a Saturday, the cashier will take the money. If either the Ministerial officer or the Accountant or both make some delay and the requisite time be past, the cashier will decline to receive the money on that date. In such circumstances, it is not just or equitable to penalize the applicant for the necessary delays in the office. In this case, in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the landlord's officer came ready with the challan to deposit the money but it being a Saturday, the 12th September, the money could not be accepted after 1 p. M. and the officer had to wait till the next Monday, the 14th September when the money was taken by the office. In the circumstances in my opinion, there was sufficient compliance with sub-sec (2) The Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs in this Court. P. C.