JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the tenant defendant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was instituted on December 23, 1959, when the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956, including the original section 17, was in force. 2. The tenant appears to have entered appearance sometime in May 1960, and, thereafter, he made an application for determination of the amount, payable by him under section 17, as he raised a dispute, denying the plaintiff's claim that he was a defaulter, as claimed by the plaintiffs, in their plaint, and, on which ground of default, the plaintiffs' claim for eviction was based. This dispute appears to have been decided by the learned trial Judge by his order, dated September 14, 1963, whereby he determined the amount, payable by the tenant-defendant under section 17 (2)as Rs. 648/- and odd and directed that the said amount be deposited within a particular time. The matter, thereafter, came up to this court and, eventually, this court, while affirming the order of the learned trial Judge that the tenant was liable to pay the above amount under section 17 (2) of the above Act, extended the time for such payment by one month from the date of its order, which was February 13, 1964. 3. The amount appears to have been deposited by the tenant defendant in the trial court on March 12, 1964, that is, within the above time, granted by this court for the purpose. 4. Thereafter, the suit proceeded and, at the final hearing, the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the tenant was a defaulter for more than four months, namely, June, July, August and September, 1959, and, upon that footing, he held that he was not entitled to the benefit of section 17 (4) of the above Act by reason of the proviso thereof, as it stood at the time, and, as he found the other points in favour of the plaintiffs and rejected the defence on the other counts, he decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Against this decree, an appeal was taken by the defendant to the court below and the learned Subordinate judge by his decision, dated April 9, 1965, dismissed the appeal, affirming the material findings of the learned trial judge. 5. From this appellate decree, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. Against this decree, an appeal was taken by the defendant to the court below and the learned Subordinate judge by his decision, dated April 9, 1965, dismissed the appeal, affirming the material findings of the learned trial judge. 5. From this appellate decree, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. In the meantime, the material law has undergone a change and under the new Ordinance, which has intervened, the proviso to section 17 (4) has been altered with retrospective effect and, under this new or altered proviso, the tenant would not be prejudiced in the matter of relief under the said section 17 (4) (main part) provided that the default for four months was only of the first instance or occasion, or, in other words, that there was only one default for four months. In the instant case, there is no doubt, on the materials before the court, that there has been no second default for four months on the part of the tenant and he has complied with the provisions of section 17 (2), read with section 17 (1), in the matter of the relevant deposits, accordingly, in view of the change of law, noticed above, the decrees for ejectment, passed by the two courts below, cannot stand and the said decrees must be set aside. 6. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the two courts below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit on the finding that the defendant being entitled to the benefit of section 17 (4) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956, by reason of the intervening change of law in the matter of the proviso to the said section with retrospective effect, is not liable to ejectment on the ground of default. There will be no order for costs in any court.