JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the tenant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment, brought under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, after service of the necessary notice of ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. 2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was a monthly tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 86. 20 paise, inclusive of taxes, according to the English calendar. The plaintiff's further allegation was that the tenant defendant was a defaulter- for more than four months, namely, from January 1959. The suit was instituted on August 5, 1959. The defence was that the tenancy in suit was a quarterly tenancy, of which the rent was payable in advance. The defence further was that the tenant was not a defaulter and, accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for ejectment. 3. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge after overruling the above defences. He found inter alia that the tenant was a defaulter for the months of January, February, March, April and May, 1959 and accordingly, was a defaulter for five months within a period of twelve months, making him liable to a decree for ejectment under section 13 (1) (i) of the above Act in spite of section 17 of the same, including its original unamended sub-section (2), by virtue of the proviso to subsection (4) of the said section upon the footing that the defendant was a monthly tenant according to the English calendar, as found by the said learned judge. The learned trial Judge further found that, even if the tenant be considered to be a quarterly tenant, the tenant would still be a defaulter for the two quarters, January to March 1959, and April to June 1959, as, according to the tenant's own case, the rents were payable in advance and the rents for those quarters were not properly tendered before the end of the particular quarter concerned. 4. On the materials before us, the above findings of default cannot be challenged and, in any view, therefore, the tenant would be a defaulter as a monthly tenant for more than four months within a period of twelve months and thus disentitled to the protection of section 17 and liable, as a necessary consequence to ejectment under section 13 (1) (i). As a quarterly tenant, again, the tenant would be liable to ejectment under section 13 (1) (i) and not entitled to the benefit of section 17 by reason of defaults in the matter of deposits under the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 17, which speaks of months and contemplates monthly deposits on its own terms. The tenant, further, is not entitled to any protection or benefit under the new Ordinance, as fairly and frankly admitted by Mr. Chakraverti, who appears for the tenant appellant, because of the terms of the said ordinance which cannot attract or extend its operation or benefit to the instant case. In the circumstances, the decree for ejectment, passed by the learned trial Judge, will have to be confirmed and this appeal will have to be dismissed but, in the circumstances of this case, we are inclined to grant the tenant defendant time till the end of November 1969, for quitting and vacating the disputed premises and making over peaceful and vacant possession thereof to the landlord decree-holder on condition that the tenant appellant goes on depositing, in the trial court, to the credit of the decree-holder respondent, a sum of Rs. 86. 20 paise inclusive of municipal taxes, 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 current mesne profits, and, in default of any one of these deposits, this decree for eviction will become executable at once and the above provision for time or grace period will automatically lapse. Subject as above, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. 5. There will be no order for costs in this court. 6. The landlord decree-holder will be entitled to withdraw any amount, which may be or may have been deposited by the tenant, either in the court below or with the Rent Controller, on account of rents or manse profits, as the case may be, without furnishing any security there for.