JUDGMENT 1. THIS revisional application is directed against an order passed by Sri S. C. Roy, Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 93 of 1957, dismissing an application by the plaintiff-landlords under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 for striking out the defense against delivery of possession on the ground that the defendant opposite party had failed to deposit in court rent for certain months after service of summons on him. The opposite party is a tenant under the petitioners in respect of the premises at No. 5, Swinhoe Street, the monthly rent of the house, being Rs. 600/-. After service of notice determining the tenancy the plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment and the writ of summons was served on the defendant opposite party on 11th October 1957. The tenancy commenced from the 15th of the English month and accordingly a month of the tenancy ran from the 15th of an English month to the 14th of the next month. In the plaint the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had failed and neglected to pay the rent of the premises from the month of the tenancy commencing on 15th September, 1956. On 9th November, 1957 i.e., 28th day after the service of summons on him, the defendant deposited rent for 3 months from 15th September 1956, to 14th December 1956, amounting to Rs. 1800/- in court. Two days later, on 11th November 1957, the defendant also deposited the interest on the aforesaid arrears upto the date of deposit, the interest being Rs. 144/ -. The defendant alleged when making the deposit that except for the months for which he deposited rent in court there was no other arrear and that oven for the aforesaid months he had made payments more or less contemporaneously by two cheques, one for Rs. 600/- and one for Rs. 1,200/-, but the plaintiffs had deliberately omitted to cash the cheques, and therefore to save himself, the defendant was making the deposit of the same of Rs. 1,800/-representing rent for those 3 months in court. On 12th October, 1957, i. e., one day after the service of summons on him, the defendant deposited in the Rent Controller's Office the rent for the month September 15 to October 14 of 1957. 1,800/-representing rent for those 3 months in court. On 12th October, 1957, i. e., one day after the service of summons on him, the defendant deposited in the Rent Controller's Office the rent for the month September 15 to October 14 of 1957. On 7th November, 1957, which is also within one month from the service of summons on him, the defendant deposited in the Rent Controller's office rent for another month, viz., the month of October 15 to November 14, 1957. The rent for subsequent months beginning from November 15, 1957 was deposited month by month in court. 2. THE suit was fixed for peremptory hearing on certain dates. At that stage, before the suit was actually taken for peremptory hearing, the plaintiffs on 19th May 1959, filed an application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act requesting that the defense against delivery of possession be struck out, because even after service of summons on him the defendant had deposited rent for the months September 15 to October 14 and October 15 to November 14, 1957, in the Rent Controller's office, and this could not be construed as valid deposit under section 17 (1) of the Act. It was also alleged in the petition under section 17 (3) that the defendant had failed to deposit in court the arrears of rent from December 15, 1956 upto November 14. 1957. The defendant contested the application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. He stated that as there had been trouble over the payment of rent for the months September 15, 1956, to December 14, 1956, the defendant had been depositing rent due from December 15, 1956, in the Rent Controller's office and had so deposited rent upto the month ending September 14, 1957, in the Rent Controller's office before the suit had been filed, and that therefore the question of depositing rent for that period over again in court could not at all arise, as he was not a defaulter in payment of rent during that period As to the deposit of the rent for 2 months in the Rent Controller's office even after the service of summons on him, the defendant contended that this deposit was not against the terms of section 17 (1). Accordingly, the defendant contended that the application under section 17 (3) of the Act was liable to be dismissed. 3. DURING hearing of the application under section 17 (3) of the Act, the defendant produced challans showing that he had duly deposited rent for the period from December 15, 1956 to September 14, 1957, in the Rent Controller's office month by month within the required dates. Accordingly, the only question that remained to be decided was whether the deposit of the rent for the months September 15 to October 14 and October 15 to November 14, 1957, in the Rent Controller's office even after service of summons on the defendant was a violation of the provision of section 17 (1). The learned Subordinate Judge held that the deposits had been made in the Rent Controller's office in good faith and even if it be held that deposits were not strictly in compliance with section 17 (1) the departure from the strict provision of sub-section was so little that the law would not take any note of it, and from equitable considerations it was not a case in which penalty under section 17 (3) ought to be imposed. Accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 4. FROM that order the plaintiffs as petitioners have filed this revisional application. Mr. P. K. Roy, appearing for the petitioners, has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin (1) (62 C. W. N. 555), where it was held that the deposit of rent in the Rent Controller's office was not legal compliance with the provisions of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as it did not amount either to deposit in court or to payment to landlord as required by sub-section (1) of section 17. It has to be considered therefore whether on the facts of the case the decision in Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin (1) is applicable. Section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is divisible into two parts. It has to be considered therefore whether on the facts of the case the decision in Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin (1) is applicable. Section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is divisible into two parts. Under the first part, the tenant is required within the one month of the service of the writ of summons on him, to deposit in court or to 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 eight and one-third per cent. from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of deposit. The second part provides that the tenant shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. In the case of Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin (1) the defendant was served with summons on 11th August, 1956 but he made no deposit in court at all. He went on depositing rent in the Rent Controller's office, and when the application under section 17 (3) was made by the plaintiff on 4th December, 1956, he took the defense that the deposit in the Rent Controller's office amounted to payment of rent within the meaning of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and that therefore, he had not contravened the terms of section 17. Their Lordships rejected this contention, and pointed out that if the tenant wants to escape the penalty under sub-section (3) of section 17, he must pay or deposit the rent for each month by the 15th of each succeeding month; and if a deposit in the Rent Controller's office were held to be permissible, a deposit by the last date of the succeeding month would constitute valid payment in view of section 22 (3) of the Act, and this would be an anomaly and the purpose of section 17 shall be frustrated thereby. The above reasoning applies to the payment under the second part of subsection (1) of section 17 which provides that the tenant shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month an amount equivalent to the rent at that rate. The words "deposit or pay" must be understood to mean "deposit in court or pay to the landlord" as in the first part of sub-section (1). The first part of sub-section (1) contains no reference to payment or deposit by the 15th of each succeeding month. It provides chiefly for payment to the landlord or deposit in court of all the arrears of rent, i. e., rent for the period in default, together with interest calculated at eight and one-third per cent., from the date when the rent falls due to the date of payment or deposit; although it is also provided that such deposit shall include the dues for the period subsequent to the period for which the tenant may have made default, upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment or deposit is made. Under this part the tenant gets one month's time to pay or deposit in court his dues for the period in default together with interest thereon. In a case where there is no arrear due on the date when the writ of summons is served on the tenant, it would appear from the wording of sub-section (1) that the liability to deposit or pay month by month accrues after one month of the service of the writ of summons on the defendant; otherwise the word "thereafter" in the second part of sub-section (1) would have no meaning. Some rent may fall due within that one month. The tenant may no doubt deposit such rent in court as it falls due; but if he deposits the rent, thus falling due in the Rent Controller's office, it would be difficult to hold that he thereby incurs the liability under sub-section (3). In Narayan Chandra Chandra v. Amala Rani Saha (2) (C. R. 1304 of 1959 decided on 4th September, 1959) Renupada Mukherjee, J. held that the tenant does not incur the liability under sub-section (3) in such a case. In Narayan Chandra Chandra v. Amala Rani Saha (2) (C. R. 1304 of 1959 decided on 4th September, 1959) Renupada Mukherjee, J. held that the tenant does not incur the liability under sub-section (3) in such a case. In the case before him the summons were served on 2nd October, 1958; the rem for September, 1958, was deposited in the Rent Controller's office by the 15th October, 1958; dues for subsequent months were deposited in court by the appropriate dates. Renupada Mukherjee, J. held that the language of sub-section (1) was not very clear and appeared to give the impression that the liability to pay or deposit current rent month by month arose only after the payment of the arrear for which the tenant was allowed one month, and if in that month the tenant continued depositing current rent falling due in the Rent Controller's office, it could not be said that his defense was liable to be struck out. In a Division Bench case decided by my learned brother and myself recently we happened to take the same view. 5. THE question is whether the position would be different when there is some arrear of rent due on the date when the writ of summons was served on the defendant. It might be said that along with the amount due for the period in default the tenant has to include the rent due for the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month just before that in which the deposit is made, and that therefore the current rent falling due within one month after the service of the writ of summons should also be deposited along with arrears of rent which are deposited. It is no doubt true that in view of the wording of the first part of subsection (1) of section 17 such a course would appear to be quite correct. On the other hand, rent for the period subsequent to the period in default has to be deposited only if such rent is due; and if the tenant has already paid the rent for such subsequent period, clearly the rent for such subsequent period cannot be included in the amount to be deposited under the first part of subsection (1) of section 17. In order to avoid payment of interest on the current rent, the tenant may choose to pay or deposit current rent as it falls due without waiting to deposit the same along with the rent for the period in default, and if the tenant has previously been depositing the current rent month by month in the Rent Controller's office there is nothing in the terms of the first part of sub-section (1) of section 17 which expressly prohibits the tenant from doing so within one month of the service of the summons on him. In other words, so far as the deposit of current rent falling due within the period of one month after the service of summons, there appears to be no distinction between a case in which there is an amount to be deposited on account of any previous default and a case in which there is no amount due to be deposited for any period in default. ( 6.) IN the present case the rent for the month September 15 to October 14, 1957, was deposited in the Rent Controller's office on 12th October, within the month for which the rent was due; and similarly the rent for the month October 15 to November 14, 1957, was deposited on the 7th November, 1957 again within the month for which the rent was due. Both the deposits were made within one month of the service of summons. In respect of such deposits the anomaly pointed out in Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin, (1) viz., the tenant being able to deposit rent for one month by the last date of the succeeding month and still claiming that it is a payment to the landlord within the terms of section 17, did not arise. In the circumstances, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge that the tenant opposite party had not incurred the liability under sub-section (3) of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, Mr. In the circumstances, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge that the tenant opposite party had not incurred the liability under sub-section (3) of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, Mr. Roy has urged that on the facts of the present case even though the anomaly of the tenant depositing rent for one month by the last date of the succeeding month did not arise, still the landlords would be at a disadvantage if such a deposit in the Rent Controller's office was accepted as valid, because if the landlords were to withdraw the amount deposited in the Rent Controller's office it would amount to waiver of the notice to quit given by him on the ground of default, in view of section 23 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. But this difficulty can be avoided by the landlord notwithstanding the amount deposited until his ejectment suit is disposed of. This does not present any insuperable difficulty. Mr. Roy has finally urged that if we do not follow the decision in Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin, (1) 62 C. W. N. 555, we should refer the matter for the decision of the larger Bench. We do not however feel to call upon to do so, because in our opinion, the decision in Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin (1) dealt primarily with the payment or deposit in court provided for by the second part of sub-section (1) of section 17, and the question whether in respect of current rent falling due within one month of the service of summons on the tenant, deposit within that month in the Rent Controller's office was a valid payment or deposit did not arise for decision in the case of Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin (1). We do not think that we are going against the decision in the aforesaid case by holding that if within a month of the service of writ of summons on him, the tenant deposits current rent as it falls due in the Rent Controller's office, he does not incur the penalty under sub-section (3), provided such rent was not in default by not having been paid within the date fixed by the contract or by the 15th of the succeeding month. Accordingly, this Rule is discharged. No order is made as to costs.