JUDGMENT 1. The opposite party has instituted an ejectment suit against the petitioner in the Third Court of Munsif, Alipore, inter alia, on the allegation that the petitioner was a monthly tenant under him at a rent of Rs. 100/- per month and that he was a defaulter since March, 1971. The opposite party's further case is that he reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The present petitioner after being served with the summons of the said ejectment suit appeared in the trial court and made an application under S. 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif, Third Court, Alipore after considering the said petition under S.17(2A) and the objection filed by the plaintiff, by his order No.30 dated 12th May, 1976 disposed of the said petition of the defendant. The learned Munsif recorded in his order that the defendant was in arrears from March, 1971 to September 1974 amounting to Rs. 4300/- and sum of Rs.1194.44 p. was due as statutory interest. The learned Munsif directed the defendant to deposit the said arrear rent and the interest due in monthly instalments of Rs.100/- beginning from the month of June, 1976 until he deposited the full amount. The last or the 55th instalment was to be of Rs. 94.44 p. only. 2. It is undisputed that the petitioner in terms of the said order under S.17(2A) dated 12th May, 1976 had been regularly depositing both current rent/damages and also the instalment due for each month. It is also no longer disputed that defendant-tenant had failed to deposit under S.17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act the sum equivalent to rent due from July, 1975 to January 76 was not obviously drawn to the notice of the trial court when it had disposed of the defendant's petition under S.17 (2A) by the aforesaid order No. 30 dated the 12th May, 1976. When the said fact of non-deposit was detected the plaintiff had filed an application under S.17(3) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant tenant. The defendant-tenant had also made a petition under sub-s. (1) and sub-s. (4) of the S.17 of the Act. When the said fact of non-deposit was detected the plaintiff had filed an application under S.17(3) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant tenant. The defendant-tenant had also made a petition under sub-s. (1) and sub-s. (4) of the S.17 of the Act. The learned Munsif, by his order dated the 7th December, 1977 rejected the defendant's said petition and allowed the plaintiff's petition under S. 17(3) and struck out the defence against delivery of possession of the defendant. The defendant-petitioner thereafter obtained the present rule. 3. In my view, the defendant's petition under sub-ss. (1) and (4) of S.17 was misconceived inasmuch as neither of the two sub-sections contemplated the filing of any application of the present nature. Secondly, the court at the stage of the passing of the decree has to consider under sub-s. (4) whether the defendant-tenant had complied with sub-s. (1), (2) or (2A) of S.17 and whether a decree under S.13(1) (i) could be passed against him. That stage has not yet reached. But there is another fundamental reason why this Rule 'should succeed in the manner set out hereinafter. Sub-section (2A) of S.17 starts with the non obstante expression "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2)....". In other words, sub-s. (2A) engrafts an exception to the provisions of sub-s. (1) and sub-s. (2) to the extent contained in sub-s. (2A). Further, the proviso to clause (b) of sub-s. (2A) lays down that where payment is permitted by instalments such sum shall include all amounts calculated at the rate of rent for the period of default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the order under this sub-section is to be made with interest on any such amount calculated at the rate specified in sub-s. (1) from the date when the amount was payable upto the date of such order. Therefore, it is clear that the court in making an order under sub-s. (2A)(b) shall include the total amount due upto the end of the month previous to the month in which the said order was being made. In the instant case the defendant-tenant had failed to deposit the sum equivalent to rent from July, 1976 to January 1976 while his application under S.17(2A) was still pending. In the instant case the defendant-tenant had failed to deposit the sum equivalent to rent from July, 1976 to January 1976 while his application under S.17(2A) was still pending. The court below was under a statutory obligation to include in its order under S.17(2A)(b) all arrears subsequent to the filing of the suit and upto the end of the month previous to that in which he made its said order. In this case obviously the said fact of non-deposit for the aforesaid period July, 75 to January, 76 was not within the knowledge of the trial court and the trial court, therefore, in its order under S. 17(2A) had omitted to make any direction for payment of the aforesaid arrear rent. 4. I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite-party that the defendant-tenant had acquiesced in the passing of the order dated 12th May, 1976 and, therefore, he was not permitted now to raise the above point. In my view, the court Itself through inadvertence had failed to discharge its statutory duty in the matter of calculation of the arrear rent and interest to be paid by instalment in terms of S. 17(2A)(b) read with the proviso thereunder. There could be no question of waiver" of such statutory provision. Unless and until an application under Sub-s. (2A) of S.17 is disposed of by the court the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S.17 cannot he invoked. Only after a valid order under sub-s. (2A) is made and there is a breach of the said order, the question of striking out the defence of the defendant under sub-s. (3) of S.17 can arise. In the instant case I have already held that trial Court having failed to include in its order a direction for payment of the arrear rent or the months of July, 1975 to January, 1976 its order dated 12th May, 1976 was an incomplete order and it is now necessary that a further order under S.17(2A) should be made by directing the defendant-tenant not only to pay balance amount of Rs. 5494.44 but also the amount equivalent to rent and interest due in respect of the months July 75 to January, 1976. The learned Advocates for both parties have stated before me that a sum of Rs. 5494.44 but also the amount equivalent to rent and interest due in respect of the months July 75 to January, 1976. The learned Advocates for both parties have stated before me that a sum of Rs. 700/- would be due as the amount of arrear rent and a sum of Rs.100/- would be payable as interest on the said arrear amount. The defendant-tenant, having regard to his own conduct and the facts of the case, should be called upon to make immediate deposit of the said amount of Rs.800/- (eight hundred) within the time indicated below. I make it clear that the order made to day for deposit of Rs. 800/would be in addition to the order already made by the trial court on 12th May, 1976 for depositing the arrear amount of Rs. 5494.44p. 5. I accordingly direct that the petitioner will deposit in the trial court or pay to the landlord a sum of Rs. 800/- within five weeks from this day. In default of making such payment or deposit, and in case of default in paying the instalment and the current rent due in terms of the order dated 12th May, 1976 the plaintiff would be entitled to apply under sub-s. 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. At the present stage, the order dated December 7, 1977 under S.17(3) being premature it shall stand set aside. The Rule is according disposed of in the above terms. 6. Let the hearing of the suit, which is pending for a considerable time, be expedited and the slime be disposed of as soon as possible. There will be no order for costs. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below expeditiously. Rule disposed of with directions.