JUDGMENT 1. This Rule is directed against an order, passed by the 2nd Additional Munsif at Alipore, directing that the Defense of the tenant petitioner against the claim for delivery of possession be struck out, under the provisions of section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Admittedly, the defendant petitioner was a monthly tenant, under the plaintiff opposite party, in respect of a portion of premises No 113, Circular Garden Reach Road, at a monthly rent of Rs. 10. Alleging that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since March, 1956, the plaintiff opposite party filed the suit, out of which this Rule arises, after service of usual notice to quit claiming eviction of the defendants from the premises in suit. It appears that the suit was filed on September 3, 1956 and the following order was recorded on that date: "register. Issue summons to defendant fixing 6. 11. 56 for ascertaining if the suit would be contested. " the next order is dated November 6, 1956 and it is to the following effect: "summons served. Plaintiff files hazirah. Defendant appears and prays for time to file written statement. To 21. 11. 56 for filing the same and for orders. . . . . " 2. The written statement was not however filed on November 21, 1956 and the defendant asked for time. Later on, the written statement was filed on December 17, 1956 within the time subsequently allowed by the court. It is to be noted that in the written statement the defendant denied the allegation of default in payment of rent and his case was that he was depositing the rent with the Rent Controller. On December 20, 1956, the plaintiff opposite party filed an application, labeled under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, alleging failure on the part of the defendant to deposit, in court, the arrears of rent and also default in payment of money equivalent of monthly rent month by month within the time allowed by section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif accepted the statement contained in the aforesaid petition and as already stated directed that the Defense against the claim for possession be struck out. Mr. Bhabesh Chandra Mitter appearing for the petitioner urged a single point for my consideration. The learned Munsif accepted the statement contained in the aforesaid petition and as already stated directed that the Defense against the claim for possession be struck out. Mr. Bhabesh Chandra Mitter appearing for the petitioner urged a single point for my consideration. He argued that there was no service of summons, according to law, on the defendant and although he might have cared to appear and contest the claim made against him, the mischief of section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was not attracted to the case because of non-service on the defendant of any document, which may be properly called to be summons. 3. The summons appears to have been drawn up in this case in the printed High Court Form No. (P) 5a. The heading shows that the form is 'common form of summons for (1) Final disposal, (2) Ascertaining whether a suit is contested or not and if not contested, for immediate disposal, (3) Settlement of issues (Order 5, Rules 1 and 5, Code of Civil Procedure). " There are three numbered clauses in the printed form. Clause (1) is relevant when the summons is for final disposal. Clause (2) is material when the summons is for ascertaining whether the suit will be contested or not. Clause (3) is relevant when the summons is for filing written statement. At the bottom of the printed form there is a foot note to the effect that clauses (1), (2) or (3) are to be struck out, as required, if the summons is for final disposal or for ascertaining whether the suit will be contested or for settlement of issues. There are also certain blank portions in the form where the description of the court where the suit is pending, the number of the suit, the names and addresses of parties to the suit and the date fixed under the summons are to be filled up. 4. The printed form that was served on the defendant, in the instant case, had the blank portion filled up according to law, bur none of the three clauses referred to above was struck out. therefore, in the shape in which it was issued, it was summons for all the three purposes mentioned in the form. 4. The printed form that was served on the defendant, in the instant case, had the blank portion filled up according to law, bur none of the three clauses referred to above was struck out. therefore, in the shape in which it was issued, it was summons for all the three purposes mentioned in the form. Now Order 5, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down what the summons shall contain is to the following effect: "the court shall determine, at the time of issuing the summons, whether it shall be for the settlement of issues only, for the ascertainment whether the suit will be contested, of for the final disposal of the suit; and the summons shall contain a direction accordingly: provided that, in every suit heard by a Court of Small Causes, the summons shall be for the final disposal of the suit." The provisions contained in Order 5, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my opinion, are of mandatory nature. In this view I am supported by an observation contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, (1) (1955) S. C. A. 554 at In the aforesaid case Bose, J. held: "first there is Order 5, Rule 1:. . . . . summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim on a day to be therein specified: the summons must state whether the hearing is to be for settlement of issues only or final hearing (Rule 5). " 5. Bose, J. was considering Order 5, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stands in the State of Rajasthan. Order 5, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stands in the State of West Bengal has hereinbefore been quoted. Therefore in this state a summons must state whether the hearing is for the final disposal or for ascertaining whether the suit will be contested and if not contested, for immediate disposal or for the settlement of issues. 6. That being the law, a document purporting to be summons but drawn up not in compliance with Order 5, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (and not also according to the directions contained in the printed form) shall not be and shall not be under stood to be summons according to law. 6. That being the law, a document purporting to be summons but drawn up not in compliance with Order 5, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (and not also according to the directions contained in the printed form) shall not be and shall not be under stood to be summons according to law. Service of a document, not drawn up, in the prescribed manner, on the printed form shall not amount to service of summons within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, all payments of arrears shall be made within one month of the service of the writ of summons on the defendant and thereafter the tenant is to continue to deposit a sum equivalent to the rent every month by the 15th day of each succeeding month. The emphasis, in my opinion is not on the word "service" only but also on the word "summons. " What is to be served on the defendant is summons according to law. A document which is an all-purpose summons, namely, for final disposal, for ascertaining whether the suit will be contested or not, or for settlement of issues is not summons as contemplated by law. Such a document is unmeaning and is likely to create confusion. As already indicated by me, in order to attract the mischief of section 17 (1) read with section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, there must be service of summons on the defendant. That is to say, there must be a document drawn up according to the provisions of the Code and the directions contained in the printed form so as to constitute it into a properly drawn up summons and that summons must also be served on the defendant according to the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. If there is omission or failure either to draw up a proper summons or to serve the summons according to law there will be no service of summons on a defendant within the meaning of section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 7. If there is omission or failure either to draw up a proper summons or to serve the summons according to law there will be no service of summons on a defendant within the meaning of section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 7. I am therefore of the opinion that, in the instant case, summons as under-stood by law, has not been served on the defendant although he may have received a printed form, capable of being converted into a summons, if certain unnecessary clauses are deleted. Until service of summons is properly effected, the provisions of section 17 (1) read with section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act do not come into operation. I therefore hold that in the circumstances of the present case the learned Munsif was in error in directing the Defense of the defendant against the claim for possession being struck out. I therefore set aside the order of the learned Munsif and make this Rule absolute. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee, appearing for the landlord opposite party, pointed out to me that the tenant petitioner was not depositing the money equivalent of monthly rent in Court. Mr. Mitter, appearing for the petitioner, very frankly stated that his client was willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 claimed by the landlord opposite party to be the amount of monthly rent in court month by month within the 15th day of each successive month and the first of such payment for the month of July 1958 would be made within the 15th of August 1958. I accept the undertaking given by the petitioner through Mr. Bhabesh Chandra Mitter in Court. Mr. Mitter however pointed out that there was some dispute about the amount of rent and the undertaking given by his client to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 month by month is without prejudice to his client's contention that the monthly rent was not Rs. 10 but Rs. 8. I leave that point open for decision by the trial court. There will be no order to costs in this Rule. Let the records be sent down to the court below as early as possible.