JUDGMENT 1. This revision case arises out of a suit by landlords for eviction of a tenant. On June 24, 1960 the trial Court dismissed the suit. On an appeal this Court by its judgment dated June 12, 1961 held that due notice to quit had been served upon the tenant, that the landlords had failed to prove that they reasonably required the premises for own occupation, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the suit to the trial Court for further consideration of the question whether there was a subletting by the tenant of a major portion of the premises within the meaning of section 13 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. On November 11, 1961 the trial Court received the records of the suit together with the remand order and the receipt was noted in the order-sheet. The parties appeared in the trial court sometime in the month of November, 1961. The landlords subsequently applied to the trial Court for an order striking off the defense of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had failed to deposit or pay to the landlords the monthly sums equivalent to the rents for several months as required by section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The trial Court dismissed the application. The landlords now ask us to revise and set aside this order. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners landlords has pressed before us three defaults for the months of Sravana, Agrahayan and Pous, 1368 B. S. For the purposes of this case it is sufficient to say that the landlords have established the default for the month of Agrahayan, 1368 B. S. The last date of Agrahayan, 1368 B. S. corresponds to December 16, 1961. Under section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the tenant had time to deposit in court the monthly sum for this month up to the 15th Agrahayan, 1368 B. S. corresponding to December 31, 1961. The tenant deposited this rent in court on January 11, 1962. The obligation of the tenant to make the deposit under section 17 (1) revived as from the date of the re-admission of the suit by the trial court after remand. The tenant deposited this rent in court on January 11, 1962. The obligation of the tenant to make the deposit under section 17 (1) revived as from the date of the re-admission of the suit by the trial court after remand. Consequently I am constrained to hold that the tenant failed to deposit or pay the monthly sum for the month of Agrahayan, 1368 B. S. as required by section 17 (1). It follows that the impugned order must be set aside. I have come to this conclusion with some reluctance. The records of this case reveal that the landlords have slender chance of winning the case on the merits and consequently are taking advantage of technical defaults by the tenant. Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 however gives me no power to condone the delay. 2. We pass the following order: the order No. 39 dated July 31, 1962 passed by the trial court is set aside. The application of the plaintiffs is allowed. The defense as against delivery of possession is struck off. The trial court is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit in accordance with law. There will be no order as to the costs of this Court. R. N. DUTT, J.- I respectfully agree with the order passed by My Lord. I should however like to add a few words. 3. The petitioners are the owners of the premises No. 107/a, Durga Charan Mitra Street, Calcutta. The opposite party was a monthly tenant of the premises at Rs. 200/- per month in accordance with the Bengali Calendar. The petitioners filed a suit for ejectment of the opposite party. The opposite party contested the suit and the suit was dismissed on 24.6.58. The petitioners preferred an appeal to this Court. On 12.6.61 this Court allowed the appeal and sent back the case on remand for being reheard on the question of subletting and its effect on the rights of the parties on the evidence on record and on further evidence to be adduced by the parties. The record was received back in the trial court on 11.11.61 and the first date fixed was 25.11.61. The record was received back in the trial court on 11.11.61 and the first date fixed was 25.11.61. On the 5th July, 1962 the petitioners filed an application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for striking out the defense of the opposite party against delivery of possession on the allegation that the opposite party did not deposit or pay rent in accordance with the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Act from June to December, 1961. The application was resisted by the opposite party. The trial Judge has dismissed the application on the finding that the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Act were not attracted to the facts of the case. 4. The petitioners have filed this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against this decision of the trial judge. This raises a short but important point about the interpretation of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Sub-section (1) of the section states that within one month of the service of summons on the defendant he shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord all arrears of rent upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made with interest and "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". Sub-section (3) states that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (1) the court shall order the defense against delivery of possession to be struck out. Sub-section (1) of section 17 comes into operation as soon as summons in the suit is served on the tenant. The question for consideration is how long sub-section (1) remains in operation. There is no time limit given in the section but it is obvious that it remains in operation during the pendency of the suit. If during the pendency of the suit the tenant fails to deposit or pay the monthly rent as required under sub-section (1) the Court shall strike out the defense against delivery of possession. The operation of sub-section (1) comes to an end as soon as the suit is disposed of by the trial court. The suit may be disposed of in various ways. The operation of sub-section (1) comes to an end as soon as the suit is disposed of by the trial court. The suit may be disposed of in various ways. First, the suit may be dismissed for default of the plaintiff, under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The obligation under sub-section (1) ceases as soon as the suit is dismissed. The suit may be revived under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the suit is thus revived the suit again becomes pending and operation of sub-section (l) and the tenant's obligation to make the deposit are revived. Secondly, the suit may be disposed of by an ex parte decree. Sub-section (1) speaks of the deposit to be made by the "tenant". The word "tenant" has been defined in section 2 (h) of the Act and excludes any person against whom any decree for eviction has been made by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Once there is a decree for ejectment the tenant ceases to be a tenant and therefore no obligation under sub-section (1) attaches to him. Operation of sub-section (1) therefore comes to an end as soon as an ex parte decree for ejectment is passed. This ex parte decree may be set aside under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the suit may be revived. Once the suit is thus revived the suit, again becomes pending and operation of sub-section (1) and the obligation of the tenant are revived. Lastly, the suit may be disposed of after trial on merits. The suit may either be dismissed or decreed. If the suit is dismissed, the tenant continues to be a tenant but if decreed, he ceases to be a tenant. But in any case the suit ceases to be pending after such disposal and operation of sub-section (1) comes to an end. There may be an appeal against the decision of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal there is no liability to deposit rent under sub-section (1. The appellate court may remand the suit to the trial court for being reheard. Under Order 41, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure, on receipt of the record, the trial court is to readmit the suit in its original number and proceed to determine the suit. The appellate court may remand the suit to the trial court for being reheard. Under Order 41, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure, on receipt of the record, the trial court is to readmit the suit in its original number and proceed to determine the suit. Thus the suit again becomes pending from the date of such readmission. It may be said that the remand in this case was not under Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code but was under section 151 of the Code. Even when the remand is under section 151 of the Code, the trial court is to re-admit the suit in its original number on the principle of Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code and the suit again becomes pending in the trial court from the date of such re-admission. Once the suit again becomes pending in the trial court, operation of sub-section (1) and the obligation of the tenant to deposit rent under that sub-section are revived. Here the record was received on 11.11.61 and the first date of appearance of the parties was 25.11.61. The suit must, therefore, be held to have again become pending at least from 25.11.61 and sub-section (1) again came into operation from 25.11.61 and. the tenant was thereafter bound to make the deposit as required in that sub-section. Let me now come to the facts of this case. The tenancy is in accordance with the Bengali Calendar. The last day of Agrahayan 1368 B. S., was the 16th of December, 1961. The deposit for the month of Agrahayan should have been made by the 31st of December, 1961. But the deposit was actually made on the 11th of January, 1962. It must, therefore, be said that the opposite party failed to make the deposit as required under sub-section (1) and hence his defense against delivery of possession is liable to be struck off under sub-section (3) of section 17 of that Act.