Judgment 1. THIS rule was obtained against order no. 13 dated 21. 1. 74 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench City Civil court, Calcutta dismissing the two applications filed by the defendant tenant under Sections 17 (2) and 17 (2a) (b)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of possession of the said premises on eviction of the defendant petitioner there from on the ground of default in payment of rent. Admittedly, provisions of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956 are applicable to the facts of the case. In the application under section 17 (2) of the Act it was stated that the defendant remitted the rents for four months, August to November, 1972 but the same was refused and it was further stated that the defendant was willing to deposit the amount after proper adjudication of the amount due and payable. In the application under section 17 (2a) of the act, it was stated that the amount as would be found due by the court should be permitted to be deposited by instalments at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month as the defendant was an old man and a pension holder. The learned Judge relying on the decision in the case of s. K. Mukherjee v. Saila Bala Sein. reported in 77 C. W. N. 492 held that the defendant was not entitled to the relief without depositing the amount admitted by him to be due and in that view both the applications were dismissed. 2. MR. Khastagir, learned advocate appearing in support of the petition has submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Judge has been dissented from by a Division Bench subsequently and it appears to be so in respect of amount admitted to be due with reference to sub-section (2) of Section 17 as will appear from the decision in the case of Maliram Agarwala v. B. Agarwala, reported in 78 C. W. N. 901. Accordingly, it was submitted the impugned order cannot be sustained. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff opposite party, has submitted that the defendant tried to raise a dispute when admittedly the rent for the months of August, 1972 to November, 1972 was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it was submitted the impugned order cannot be sustained. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff opposite party, has submitted that the defendant tried to raise a dispute when admittedly the rent for the months of August, 1972 to November, 1972 was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. As the application under section 17 (2)was not maintainable in the absence of any dispute, the application under section 17 (2a) was also not maintainable as it depended on the adjudication of the dispute which was non-existent. He has further submitted that in view of the conduct of the defendant, the court should not exercise the discretion in favour of the tenant. Under the provisions of sub-section (2a) of section 17 of the Act, any amount admittedly due under the provision of Sub-section (1) or (2) of section 17 may be paid by such instalments and by such date as the court may think fit having regard to the attending circumstances. The existence of a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant is not a condition precedent for making an application under sub-section (2a) as its provisions apply notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) apart from Sub-section (2) of Section 17. Accordingly, even if there is no dispute, it cannot be said that the application under this subsection is not maintainable in law as contended. 3. UNDOUBTEDLY, the defendant tried to raise a dispute when there was none; even so he is entitled under the law to an appropriate order in facts and circumstances as provided in clause (b) of Sub-section (2a. Having regard to the fact that rent for those four months was remitted by Money order I do not think that the defendant should be made entitled to pay the said dues by instalments as prayed for. In view of the issuance of this Rule, the amount, it appears, has not been deposited in the meantime. It is further to be noted that the suit is one for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. In that view of the matter, the proper order, in my opinion would be to direct the defendant to deposit the amount in default together with the statutory interest thereon within four weeks from the date of this order and, in default, the consequences in law will follow. In that view of the matter, the proper order, in my opinion would be to direct the defendant to deposit the amount in default together with the statutory interest thereon within four weeks from the date of this order and, in default, the consequences in law will follow. Accordingly, I allow this application and make the Rule absolute and set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the rejection of the application under section 17 (2a) of the Act. I direct that the defendant will deposit in Court or pay to the landlord opposite party the rent for months from August, 1972 to November, 1972 with statutory interest thereon within four weeks from the date of this order and in default his defence against delivery of possession will be struck out and the court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. The petitioner will however pay the costs of this application in this court, hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs. Let the records be sent down at once. Rule made absolute.