JUDGMENT 1. This Rule is directed against an order striking off the defence of the defendant petitioner against the claim for delivery of possession of the premises in suit made by the plaintiff opposite party. The defendant petitioner was a tenant under the plaintiff opposite party in respect of one shop room at premises No. P-7 (now No. 10-C) Suhrwardy Avenue, P. S. Beniapukur, Calcutta, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. On July 10, 1957, the plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit claiming eviction of the defendant petitioner from the said premises on the plea that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since November, 1956. The tenant petitioner filed written statement in the said suit denying that he was a defaulter as alleged in the plaint. His specific defence was that he had deposited rents from month of October, 1956 to June, 1957 with the Rent Controller and thereafter he was going on depositing monthly amount calculated at the rate of rent with the trial court. 2. The admitted position is that the defendant petitioner was served with summons in the case on July 17, 1957. He deposited an amount equivalent to the monthly rent for July, 1957 on August 17, 1957, another such amount for August, 1957 on September 14, 1957, and a similar amount for September, 1957 on October 28, 1957. The application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 was filed by the plaintiff opposite party on November 28, 1957 praying that inasmuch as the amount equivalent to the monthly rent for the month of September, 1957 was not deposited in time the defence against delivery of possession should be struck out. The defendant petitioner filed a verified petition of objection to the prayer made by the plaintiff opposite party, of which the material paragraphs are set out below: "para 5. That the petitioner is an illiterate person. He had no knowledge when the courts would reopen after the Pujah holidays; moreover he had been suffering from dysentery, accompanied by fever since 23rd October, 1957, and as such there was delay of 2 days only in depositing rent for September, 1957, instead of depositing rent on the 25th October, 1957 it was deposited on the 28th October, 1957. A medical certificate is enclosed herewith. Para 6. That the delay was quite unintentional. A medical certificate is enclosed herewith. Para 6. That the delay was quite unintentional. Had he not been prevented by illness and ignorance of the date of reopening, he would have surely deposited rent for September, 1957 on 25th October, 1957. No rent up to date is due from the defendant petitioner. " The defendant petitioner prayed in the said petition that the delay may be condoned and he further prayed for being allowed to contest the claim for possession. 3. By an order dated the 14th January, 1958 the trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff opposite party and directed that the defence against delivery of possession be struck off. The court below was of opinion that the delay in depositing the amount equivalent to the rent for the month of September, 1957 could not be condoned in view of the mandatory provisions of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 4. Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the petitioner argued before me that the case came under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and not under section 17 (1) of the said Act. The plea that the defendant was in arrears since November, 1956 was denied in the written statement. Until the Court below determined whether the defendant was at all in arrears and if so, what amount was he liable to deposit, the tenant petitioner had. Mr. Bhattacharyya argued, no liability to deposit any amount at all. In support of his contention he relied on a decision of Renupada Mukherjee, J. reported in (1) 61 C. W. N. 837, (Dwijesh Chandra Maitra v. Kshitish Chandra Ghose and ors.). This argument is entirely misconceived. Section 17 (1) requires a tenant, (a) to deposit in Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of 8. 1/3 per cent. per annum from the date when such amount was payable upto the date of deposit. 1/3 per cent. per annum from the date when such amount was payable upto the date of deposit. (b) and thereafter to continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. Section 17 (2) provides that if in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall determine having regard to the provisions of this Act the amount to be deposited or paid to the landlord by the tenant in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1). On failure on the part of the tenant to deposit or to pay any of the amount referred to in subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 17 the Court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. In this case there may be dispute as to the amount of arrears to be deposited or paid to the landlord upto June, 1957 but there is no dispute as to the amount payable subsequent to June, 1957. In respect of the latter amount nothing remained for the Court to determine under section 17 (2) of the Act. For non-payment of any of these latter amounts required under section. 17 (1) of the Act the provisions of section 17 (3) of the Act are attracted. That being so, by paying the amount due for September, 1957 beyond the statutory date, namely, 15th October, 1957, the tenant petitioner attracted the mischief of section 17 (3) of the Act. It is true that the Court remained closed upto the 25th October, 1957 and because of that the tenant could not deposit in time but that did not entitle the tenant petitioner to delay in making the deposit further beyond the 25th October 1957. Whatever may be the merits of the case made by the defendant petitioner, for extension of time, the Court below had no power to grant extension as prayed for or at all. Section 17 (3) contains a mandatory provision and leaves no discretion in the Court. If any of the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Act is violated, the tenant must suffer the consequences provided for in section 17 (3) of the said Act. Section 17 (3) contains a mandatory provision and leaves no discretion in the Court. If any of the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Act is violated, the tenant must suffer the consequences provided for in section 17 (3) of the said Act. In the above view of the matter, I hold that the court below was right in striking out the defence against delivery of possession. I discharge this Rule but regard being had to the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.