JUDGMENT 1. This is the defendant's appeal, arising out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was brought in respect of two rooms Nos. 20 and 31 of Stephen House, Calcutta, which, according to the plaintiff, the Dalhousie Properties Limited, were held and occupied by the defendant Ballabhdas Agarwal Private Ltd. as a monthly tenant under it, according to the English calendar, at a rent of Rs. 300/- per month, but, which tenancy was duly determined by an appropriate notice to quit terminating the same with the expiry of December, 1957. The plaintiff further alleged in the plaint, which was filed on January 22, 1958, that the defendant was a defaulter in the payment of rent since September, 1957, and, as such, was disentitled to the protection of the relevant Rent Control Law, namely, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 2. The defense, inter alia, was that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of three rooms Nos. 20, 21 and 23 of the aforesaid Stephen House, Calcutta, at a rental of Rs. 400/ -. per month, and as such, the notice to quit was invalid and insufficient, and the present suit was not maintainable. The defense, further, was that the defendant was not a defaulter, as it had been duly depositing the rents with the Rent Controller on the plaintiff's refusal to accept the same. The learned trial Judge overruled the defense and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this appeal by the defendant. In support of the appeal, Mr. Das Gupta contended, in the first instance, that the learned trial Judge was in error in holding that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the rooms in suit at Rs. 300/- per month and in affirming the validity of the notice to quit upon that finding. It is clear, however, on the materials before us, that the above finding of the learned trial Judge as to the defendant's tenancy was correct. Those materials make it abundantly clear that the defendant held two tenancies under the plaintiff, one in respect of the disputed rooms Nos. 20 and 21 and the other in respect of the other room No. 23, at the respective rentals of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 100/- per month, and, although some of the rent receipts (Vide e. g., Ex. 20 and 21 and the other in respect of the other room No. 23, at the respective rentals of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 100/- per month, and, although some of the rent receipts (Vide e. g., Ex. A) which were granted by the landlord, were consolidated ones, mentioning all the three rooms and the total or added up rental of Rs. 400/-per month, the corresponding bills (Vide Exs. 1 series), which were issued to and accepted by the tenant defendant, were separate for the above two tenancies. In these circumstances, the defense of one tenancy for the above three rooms at a rental of Rs. 400/- per month, was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. 3. Mr. Das Gupta next contended that the defendant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent as the rents since September, 1957, had been duly deposited with the Rent Controller after necessary refusal of the tenant's tender by the landlord. It is to be remembered in this connection that the rents for September and October, 1957, were deposited by the defendant on December 10, 1957, which was beyond the time, prescribed by law. The subsequent deposits for November, 1957, onwards were prima facie within time and could be good deposits, provided the necessary condition about their validity, namely, the landlord's refusal of the tenant's tender, as contemplated by law and, to accept the particular rents tendered or any earlier tender of rent be established. This essential condition, however, does not appear to Lave been fulfilled in this case and, accordingly, all the deposits with the Rent Controller, namely, for the months of September to December. 1957, were invalid with the result that the defendant is a defaulter for four months and thus disentitled to the benefit of section 17 also (Vide the proviso to sub-section 4 thereof. 4. That none of the above deposits was a valid deposit under the law, would be at once clear, if we bear in mind the relevant provisions of the statute in question, namely, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. That none of the above deposits was a valid deposit under the law, would be at once clear, if we bear in mind the relevant provisions of the statute in question, namely, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In order that a deposit of rent with the Rent Controller may be valid for purposes of the relevant section 13 (1) (i) of the said Act, it must be made within the month following that for which the particular rent is due, upon refusal of the relative timely tender, if any, by the landlord. This, in our view, is the combined effect of the two relevant sections on the point, namely, sections 21 and 22. The deposits for September and October, 1957, at least would thus be invalid for purposes of the aforesaid section 13 (1) (i) and would prima facie withdraw the protection which might otherwise have been available to the tenant under the main part of the said section. . That, of course, would not necessarily put an end to the matter, as the tenant may still have a right to claim relief under section 17. In the present case, however, the tenant can make no such claim. There is no evidence in this case that any of the rents was tendered to the landlord in time, as contemplated by section 21, read with section 4 of the Act. Obviously, then there was no refusal within the meaning of section 21 and there were no other circumstances, as required by the said section, which would entitle the tenant to make any deposit of rent with the Rent Controller. In the written statement no doubt, an allegation was made that there was due tender of rent to the landlord but there was no evidence, worth the name, in support of the same. The learned trial Judge obviously erred in holding that there was no default except in regard to the two months of September and October, 1957, upon the erroneous view that the subsequent deposits for November and December, 1957, had been duly made in consequence of the landlord's refusal to accept rent, as contemplated under section 21. On record, the only evidence of tender to the landlord is of the rents for September and October, 1957, by postal Money Order, dated November, 27, 1957. On record, the only evidence of tender to the landlord is of the rents for September and October, 1957, by postal Money Order, dated November, 27, 1957. That tender was, no doubt, refused by the landlord but it was clearly a bad tender as it was rot made within the time, prescribed for the purpose by section 21 read with section 4. The record contains no other evidence of tender' of rent and the allegation of due tender in the written statement and the more specific allegation in that behalf in the tenant's application (Ext. 5) before the Rent Controller have not been proved or even attempted to be proved on the tenant's behalf. In these circumstances, none of the deposits with the Rent Controller can be regarded as valid for any purpose whatsoever, as the tenant had, in the events which have happened, no right to make any such deposit. In this view, the tenant defendant would be a defaulter in the payment of rent for four months within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (4) of sec. 17, and thus would lose the protection and all claims to relief under the said section. Mr. Das Gupta argued that his client could not be considered to be a defaulter at all, or, at least, for purposes of sec. 17, when he had actually deposited the rents in question with the Rent Controller, even though there was no due tender of the same to the landlord in time, and he relies on the point upon the decision of Roxburgh, J. in B. K. Biswas v. Phanindra Nath Bagchi (1) 55 C. W. N. 107. All we need say upon this argument is that that decision was given under a statute, which was materially different in its relative provisions in that there was no specific requirement thereunder that, in order to be valid, the deposit of rent with the Rent Controller must be preceded by a valid tender of it to the landlord in time, and, further, that the defaults in question were, expressly under the relevant statute, subject to relief by subsequent deposit in court within a particular time irrespective of the number of defaults, the claim to that relief being absolute and not liable to be lost or forfeited in case the default exceeded a particular number. The position here, however, is entirely different as, under the relevant statute (The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956), a valid timely tender (vide sec. 21 read with sec. 4) is a condition precedent to the validity of the relative or corresponding deposit and all subsequent deposits with the Rent Controller (vide the aforesaid section 21) and, further, defaults for four months within a period of twelve months would be an absolute bar to any claim of relief against the same [vide sec. 17 (4) Proviso]. It is clear also that, in the present case, if there were defaults, as found above by us, they would be of four months as aforesaid and thus beyond the scope of any relief under the relevant statute [vide the above proviso to section 17 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. ] 5. FOR the foregoing reasons, we would affirm the decree of ejectment, passed by the trial court, but, as, obviously, the defendant, under a misconception of lis rights, failed to protect himself in spite of his deposits of rent, which were admittedly made, we would give it time till the end of the present English year to vacate the suit premises, and, until that time, the decree for ejectment would not be executable, provided, of course, that the defendant, goes on depositing in the trial court to the credit of the plaintiff-decree-holder a sum of Rs. 303/- per month, month by month regularly, according to the English Calendar, within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the same calendar, on account of damages or mesne profits. In default of any such deposit, the aforesaid grace period would automatically end and the present ejectment decree would become executable at once. Subject as above, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.