JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against Order No. 90 dated 6th August, 1974 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 325 of 1970 by which the learned Munsif rejected the petitioner's application under Section 151 C.P.C. and allowed the application of the opposite parties under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The opposite parties filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. On 29th March, 1973 the opposite parties filed an application under Section 17(3) for striking out defence against delivery of possession on the ground that the defendant had not complied with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. On 9th may, 1973 the defendant filed his written objection to the application under Section 17(3). It was admitted in the written objection that deposits for some months mentioned in the said application could not be made within the prescribed period on account of the fact that the defendant was attacked with tuberculosis and was confined to bed and on account of disturbance and lawlessness prevailing in the locality at the relevant period. The defendant after filing written objection also filed an application under section 151 for condoning the delay in depositing the aforesaid amount on the grounds stated in the application. The plaintiffs filed a written objection to the application under Section 151, stating that there was no ground for condonation. Both the applications were taken up together for hearing. Evidence was also adduced. The learned Munsif considering the evidence was not satisfied with the case as made out by the defendant and that being so he rejected the application under Section 151 and refused to condone the delay in depositing the rents. The learned Munsif allowed the application under Section 17(3) holding that the defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant has come up in this court. 2. Mr. Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee (Sr), learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, concedes that he cannot challenge the order passed under Section 151 of the Code. It is submitted that the learned Munsif acted illegally in allowing the application under Section 17(3). It is contended by Mr. 2. Mr. Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee (Sr), learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, concedes that he cannot challenge the order passed under Section 151 of the Code. It is submitted that the learned Munsif acted illegally in allowing the application under Section 17(3). It is contended by Mr. Chatterjee that in the written statement the petitioner very clearly made out, a case that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and on the said pleading an issue was framed by the court, being Issue No.2. : "Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant". When such a plea was taken by the defendant, the learned Munsif ought to have decided whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties before allowing the application under Section 17(3). Mr. Kanjilal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties draws my attention to the statement made in the petition of objection filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties' application under Section 17(3). In that written objection no plea was taken that there was absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Rather in paragraph 3 of the said written objection it has been stated that the defendant complied with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In the application under Section 151 filed by the petitioner, a prayer was made for condonation of delay of certain deposits. There also the petitioner did not raise the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the plaintiffs' suit as framed is not maintainable and the defendant is not to comply with the provisions of Section 17(1). 3. For the circumstances above, I am of the opinion that the learned Munsif was quite right in allowing the application under Section 17(3) of the Act. 4. In the result, the application fails and the Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down immediately.