JUDGMENT 1. THIS Revisional application is directed against an order under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, striking out the defence against delivery of possession in Ejectment Suit No. 20 of 1959 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gooch-Behar. The rent of the godown of which the petitioner is the lessee was settled by contract at Rs. 333-5-0, the date of commencement of the tenancy being 20th May, 1952. On 20th March, 1954, the petitioner filed an application for fixation of standard rent and at one stage standard rent was fixed at Rs. 230/- by the Rent Controller. But that order was set aside, and after remand, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 40. 80 np. But that order was also set aside, and no final order has yet been passed on the application for fixation of standard rent. In the meantime the opposite party landlord having served notice determining the tenancy, instituted the ejectment suit on 22-6-59 and summons was served on the petitioner on 2-7-59. The petitioner thereafter became liable to deposit arrears of rent and current rent under the provisions of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. There was an application by the tenant petitioner under section 17 (2) for determining the amount of arrears payable under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 17, as on account of the several orders of the Rent Controller fixing standard rent which were subsequently set aside, the tenant petitioner had deposited different amounts before the Rent Controller from time to time, and at one stage, on account of some mistake, rent for the same period was deposited twice over. This application under section 17 (2) was heard and decided by the learned Subordinate Judge and by the order dated 9-12-59, the learned Subordinate Judge pointed out that on account of the different orders fixing standard rent the defendant had deposited rent for five months from Manager or Agrahayan Sudi 1, 2014 to Baisakh Bodi 15, 2015 Sambat year at a lower rate of rent, and he was, therefore liable to deposit the difference. The learned Subordinate Judge observed that the defendant had deposited rent with the Rent Controller from Sravan Sudi. 1,2015 to Kartick Bodi 15,2016 Sambat Year. The learned Subordinate Judge observed that the defendant had deposited rent with the Rent Controller from Sravan Sudi. 1,2015 to Kartick Bodi 15,2016 Sambat Year. After making the necessary calculation, including interest, the learned Subordinate Judge ordered that the defendant do deposit into court or pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 2,709. 18 np., being the amount payable upto Manager or Agrahayan. Bodi 15,2016 with, interest at the prescribed rate within 15 days, and also continue depositing a sum equivalent to rent at the rate of Rs. 333.31 np. by the 15th of each succeeding month and if he failed to deposit or pay any such amount, his defence against delivery of possession would be struck out. 2. THIS order, as already stated, was made on December 9, 1959. On December 7, 1959, the plaintiff opposite party had filed an application under section 17 (3) for striking out the defence against delivery of possession, because the summons had been served on July 2, 1959, corresponding to Ashar Bodi 2016 S. Y., the rent from Ashar Sudi 1,2016 to Kartick Bodi 15,2016 S. Y. has been deposited with the Rent Controller and not in court as required by the provisions of section 17 (1). The learned Subordinate Judge heard the application under 17 (3) after disposal of this tenant's application under section 17 (2) and passed an order on February 13, 1960, on that application striking out the defence against delivery of possession on the ground that for those four months after service of summons the tenant had failed to deposit the rent in court, but had made the deposits with the Rent Controller. Against that order striking out the defence against delivery of possession the tenant has filed this revisional application. Mr. Against that order striking out the defence against delivery of possession the tenant has filed this revisional application. Mr. C. C. Ganguly appearing for the petitioner has urged that in his order under section 17 (2) passed on December 9, 1959, the learned Subordinate Judge had considered all rent payable upto Magsar or Agrahayan Bodi 15, 2016 S. Y. and had directed deposit of future rent month by month by the 15th of each following month, in addition to the arrears calculated by him upto the end of the month previous to the month in which the order was made and in the circumstances for a technical default for a period before the date of his first order, he could not subsequently pass an order under section 17 (3) striking out the defence. 3. MR. J. K. Sen Gupta appearing for the opposite party has urged that the two orders should be taken together because after passing the order under sec. 17 (2) on December 9, 1959, the learned Subordinate Judge recorded an order on the same date that he would proceed to hear the application of the plaintiff under section 17 (3) on a subsequent date and in pursuance of that order he subsequently heard the application under section 17 (3) and passed the order striking out the defence; and in the circumstances it could not be held that the two orders are inconsistent. 4. THE fact, however, remains that the order under section 17 (2) was passed on December 9, 1959, and the learned Judge considered the amount due as arrears of rent up to Magsar Bodi 15,2016 S. Y., together with interest thereon and the tenant was directed to deposit future rent month by month by the 15th of each following month but in the subsequent order dated February, 13, 1960, the learned Subordinate Judge took into consideration technical default for the earlier period between Ashar Sudi and Kartick Bodi 2016, SY., the rent for which had already been taken into consideration in his previous order under section 17 (2). Therefore, there can be no doubt that there is inconsistency between the two orders. Therefore, there can be no doubt that there is inconsistency between the two orders. It is true that if the learned Subordinate Judge had not passed any order under section 17 (2), he could have passed an order under section 17 (3), striking the defence inasmuch as rent for the four months from Ashar Sudi to Kartick Bodi, 2016, S. Y., after the service of notice had been erroneously deposited with the Rent Controller. But having passed an order previously under section 17 (2) and rent for the disputed period being included within the scope of that order, the subsequent order under section 17 (3) must be held to be bad. Under the terms of section 17 (1) the tenant has within a month of service of the 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 up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit is made, together with interest thereon; and shall thereafter continue to deposit month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equal to the rent. Now if there is a dispute as to the rate of rent or amount of arrears the court has to pass an order under section 17 (2) and the order under section 17 (2) has to determine the amount to be deposited or paid to the landlord in accordance with the provisions of section 17 (1). Under the order under sub-section (2), a date of deposit has to be fixed and the arrears of rent up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit is to be made has to be included in that order. Having done that, there is no scope for a subsequent order under section 17 (3) in respect of the period which is already included in the order under subsection (2 ). Having done that, there is no scope for a subsequent order under section 17 (3) in respect of the period which is already included in the order under subsection (2 ). In other words, the provision as to deposit month by month in court comes into play only "thereafter", that is to say, after the first deposit including the arrears has been made, whether such deposit is made by the tenant suo motu under section 17 (1) or under the order of the court under section 17 (2). In fact, as we have already pointed out, the learned Subordinate Judge in his order under section 17 (2) directed the tenant to continue depositing by the 15th of each succeeding month an amount equivalent to rent at the rate of Rs. 333.31 np. and observed that if the tenant failed to do that, his defence would be liable to be struck out. Thus, it was no longer open to him to pass an order subsequently striking out the defence for a technical default during an earlier period. Therefore, the subsequent order under section 17 (3) must be held to be bad. Mr. Sen Gupta has urged that it is the previous order under section 17 (2) which should be held to be bad and that the landlord has no opportunity to challenge that order because subsequently under the order under section 17 (3) the defence was struck out. The fact however remains that the landlord does not appear to have made any objection when the learned Subordinate Judge heard the application under section 17 (2) and passed the order under that section. Therefore at this stage the landlord opposite party cannot be heard to say that the order under section 17 (2) was a wrong order. 5. ACCORDINGLY, this Rule is made absolute and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated February, 13, 1960, striking out the defence against delivery of possession is set aside. Let the record be sent down expeditiously so that the suit can be heard on merits at an early date. No order is made as to costs in this Court.