JUDGMENT Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. The defendant-tenant has obtained this Rule against the order of the learned Munsif, 1st Additional Court, Alipore, rejecting her petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowing the plaintiff's prayer for striking out her defence against delivery of possession under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 2. On 1.7.1972 the present opposite parties as plaintiffs had instituted a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the ground-floor of the premises No.36. Kabir Road, inter alia, on the grounds that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since January, 1972, that she had sublet the premises and that the plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. On 12.3.1973 the said suit was ex-parte decreed against the defendant-tenant. Thereafter, she applied under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allowed and the said ex-parte decree was set aside. Thereafter, the defendant-tenant filed her written statement. The said ejectment suit had been already heard in part. Between 8.6.1977 and 29.6.1977 the plaintiffs' witnesses have been examined-in-chief and cross-examined. On 15.7.1977 examination of the defendant's witnesses commenced. On 23.12.1977 the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. They alleged that the defendant had not complied with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and she had not been paying or depositing the amounts equivalent to current rents. On 23.12.1977 the defendant-tenant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that she had been making deposits in the office of the Rent Controller through different persons at different times. Rents up to 1975 were deposited in the name of S.N. Chatterjee and the other plaintiffs did not object. The said amounts in deposit had been withdrawn. But the name of S.K. Chatterjee in place of S.N. Chatterjee was written in the challans for 1976-77. She claimed that the same were bonafide typing mistakes. She was taking steps for correction of the challans so that there may not be any difficulty for withdrawal of such amounts by the plaintiffs. She prayed for condonation of the mistakes made in the challans under Section 151 of the Code. She claimed that the same were bonafide typing mistakes. She was taking steps for correction of the challans so that there may not be any difficulty for withdrawal of such amounts by the plaintiffs. She prayed for condonation of the mistakes made in the challans under Section 151 of the Code. The defendant-tenant also filed an objection to the application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed by the plaintiffs. 3. On 3.2.1978 the court below directed the defendant to produce the challans. The defendant, however, did not produce the said challans in the court below. On 17.2.1978 the plaintiff No.2 was examined as a witness in the said Section 17(3) matter. The defendant did not cross-examine him. She also did not herself depose. On 15.3.1978 the trial court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and rejected the defendant's application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The obligation under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (before the said provision was amended by the West Bengal Act XXXIX of 1965) could be discharged either by making deposits in Court or by payment to the landlord sums equivalent to rent. The law then did not permit deposit of such sums mentioned in Section 17(1) in the office of the Rent Controller See Siddeswar Paul vs. Prakash Chandra Dutta, 68 CWN 30. The Supreme Court in Kaluram vs. Baidyanath, AIR 1965 SC 1909 , had approved the said Special Bench decision and with reference to the state of law prior to the enactment of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act. (Act XXXIX of 1965) had inter alia, pointed out that the scheme of Section 17(1) was a complete scheme by itself. The deposit of rent under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was based on the contractual obligation of the tenant to pay the rent. On the other hand, the deposit made under Section 17(1) was the result of a statutory obligation. The mode in which the deposit was required to be made had been laid down by the statutory provisions. The Supreme Court in Kaluram vs. Baidyanath (supra) at page 1915, paragraph 19 had observed:- "The scheme of the three clauses of Section 22 is clearly integrally connected with Section 21. The mode in which the deposit was required to be made had been laid down by the statutory provisions. The Supreme Court in Kaluram vs. Baidyanath (supra) at page 1915, paragraph 19 had observed:- "The scheme of the three clauses of Section 22 is clearly integrally connected with Section 21. These clauses deal with deposits made under Section 21. In fact, it would be difficult to read Section 22(3) independently of Section 22(1) and (2); all the three clauses of Section 22 must be read together, and so, the time for making the deposit for the purpose of. Section 22(3) would be the time prescribed by contract and not the statutory time." 5. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, (Act XXXIX of 1965) had inserted the words deposit in Court or with the Controller or pay to the landlord in sub-section (1) of Section 17. But the legislature has not yet laid down the manner of making deposits in the office of the Rent Controller in terms of Section 17(1). Necessary rules, however, have not been framed. Therefore, such post suit deposits by tenants in the office of the Rent Controller have been continued to be made in accordance with Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy read with the Rules made thereunder. But I have already referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Kaluram's case (supra) regarding the basic difference between deposits made by a tenant where the landlords refused to amicably accept rent tendered by the tenant or in case of a bonafide doubt as to the persons to whom the rents are payable and deposits are to be made in the discharge the of the statutory obligations under Section 17(1). 6. Both sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 22 of the Act refer to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Therefore, as present advised, I am not able to hold that the question of the validity of deposits in the office of the Rent Controller in terms of Section 17(1) should be considered in the light of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 22. Therefore, in considering the question of the validity or otherwise of the post suit deposits in the office of the Rent Controller, Section 22(2) may not apply. Therefore, in considering the question of the validity or otherwise of the post suit deposits in the office of the Rent Controller, Section 22(2) may not apply. Therefore, the observations of the Division Bench in Bengal Tent Manufacturing Company vs. Amiya Prova Das Gupta, 64 CWN 342, with reference to Section 20(2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary-Provisions) Act (XVII of 1950) may not apply to the facts of the present case. The Letters Patent Bench's decision in LPA No. 61 of 1974, Ranibala Ghosh vs. Benodini Sarkar & others (dead) disposed of on 2.9.1977, also dealt with the question of pre act deposits with incorrect particulars in the office of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the said decision is also inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 7. But there are cogent reasons for holding that the defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Even after the institution of the ejectment suit the defendant-tenant held continued to deposit with the Rent Controller amount equivalent to rent month by month in fulfillment of her statutory obligation under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The plaintiff-landlords had already withdrawn such deposits up to the end of 1975 and they did not dispute the validity of the said deposits under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Therefore, it was not be necessary to enter into the question of validity or otherwise of the said deposits. Since January, 1976 the defendant-tenant had been depositing under Section 17(1) the amount equivalent to rent in the office of the Rent Controller in the name of S.K. Chatterjee as the landlord. The plaintiffs did not withdraw the said deposits made in the name of S.K. Chatterjee. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, has pointed out that Satyendra Nath, Bhupendra Nath, Sourendra Nath and Jitendra Nath Chatterjee, as plaintiff landlords have instituted the instant suit. The defendant in her written statement has admitted her tenancy under the plaintiffs and she had only disputed the description of her tenancy. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has also correctly pointed out that the defendant-tenant was under a statutory obligation to pay to all the four plaintiffs or deposit the amounts referred to under Section 17(1) of the Act to their credit. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has also correctly pointed out that the defendant-tenant was under a statutory obligation to pay to all the four plaintiffs or deposit the amounts referred to under Section 17(1) of the Act to their credit. Therefore, she should have legitimately mentioned the names of all the four plaintiffs in the rent control challans. Not only she did not make any deposit jointly in their names but she purported to deposit only in the name of S.K. Chatterjee as her landlord. Admittedly, the said description of the plaintiff No.1 was erroneous. The initials of Satyendra Nath Chatterjee, the plaintiff No.1, were S.N. and not S.K. Therefore, the defendant bad made deposits in question in the wrong Flame of one of the plaintiff. There is considerable substance in the submission of Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the opposite parties that in view of these inaccuracies the four plaintiffs would be unable to withdraw from the office of the Rent Controller these deposits made in the name of S.K. Chatterjee. Such deposits in the incorrect name of the plaintiff No.1 did not amount to valid discharge of the defendant's obligation to comply with the second part of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Promises Tenancy Act, 1956. In my view, this non-mentioning of the names of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and the wrong description of the plaintiff No.1 clearly invalidated the deposits made by the defendant in the office of the Rent Controller. I have already pointed out that the assertion of the plaintiff's that the deposits were made by the defendant in a wrong name deliberately to put the plaintiff's in trouble remained untraversed. 8. In the result, the deposits with the Rent Controller since January, 1976 were invalid and there was failure on her part to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The provisions of Section 151 of the Code could not be invoked to correct such mistakes in the rent control challans D.N. Sinha C.J. and A.K. Mukherjea J. in Manikchand Durgaprosad & Brothers vs. Balukidas Baheti, AIR 1969 Cal. The provisions of Section 151 of the Code could not be invoked to correct such mistakes in the rent control challans D.N. Sinha C.J. and A.K. Mukherjea J. in Manikchand Durgaprosad & Brothers vs. Balukidas Baheti, AIR 1969 Cal. 104 , inter alia, held that neither the Deputy Registrar of the office of the Rent Controller nor even the Controller can make any correction in the challans and vary the appropriation of the rent to a month other than what is mentioned in the application. I respectfully follow the above decision which is binding upon me. Therefore, I hold that the deposits made by the defendant in the name of S.K. Chatterjee as landlord in the office of the Rent Controller were not capable of being corrected either by the Rent Controller far less by the learned Munsif hearing the ejectment suit. Obviously, the Munsif had no jurisdiction to correct mistakes in the challans for depositing the amounts equivalent to rent in the office of the Rent Controller. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the defendant had applied before the Rent Controller for making the necessary corrections. Therefore, these deposits in the name of S.K. Chatterjee were made with Rent Controller in contravention of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 9. It is necessary to note two other points mooted by the learned advocate for the petitioner. It has been submitted that the plaintiff's application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was not maintainable because the suit has been already heard in part. So long as the ejectment suit remains pending in the trial court, the defendant tenant has a statutory obligation under Section 17(1) to deposit in court or in the office of the Rent Controller or pay to the landlord a sum equivalent to rent month by month within the 15th day of each succeeding month. The landlords' right to apply before the court for striking out the defence against delivery of possession under Section 17(3) must be co-extensive with the obligation of the tenant to make deposit or payment under Section 17(1). The landlords' right to apply before the court for striking out the defence against delivery of possession under Section 17(3) must be co-extensive with the obligation of the tenant to make deposit or payment under Section 17(1). The liability of the tenant to deposit or pay under Section 17(1) commences from the date of the institution of the ejectment suit or proceeding and ends with the termination of the said suit, See observations of Chatterjee, J. in Kanailal Dutta vs. Kanailal Patra, 67 CWN 334. In fact the Section 17(3) does not require that in all cases the landlord must make an application before the tenant's defence against delivery of possession could be struck out. Where facts are disputed, it is desirable that a verified application should be filed by the landlord to enable the defendant-tenant to contest the allegations in the landlords' application about contravention, if any of the provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(2) or 17(2A) as the might be. Further, in this case, the alleged defaults related to a period prior to the commencement of the final hearing of the suit. Therefore, this submission about non-maintainability of the application under Section 17(3) fails. 10. I also find no substance in the next submission on behalf of the learned advocate for the petitioner. The submission was that the court below should have allowed the application of the defendant-tenant under Section 151 of the Code. In the first place, I have already pointed out that neither the Rent Controller nor the trial court had any jurisdiction to permit any correction to be made in the rent control challans. Secondly, in the facts of this case the trial court in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code cannot now permit the defendant-tenant to pay or redeposit amounts equivalent to rent long after the prescribed time for making such deposits or payments had expired. In this case, the Court itself did not commit any mistake if committed which might have occasioned the said error in the challans. Further, the defendant did not plead that by an act of Vis Major or due to circumstances beyond her control like the suspension of the working of the court and of the office of the Rent Controller or a general strike, she was prevented from making the requisite deposits or payments within the time. Further, the defendant did not plead that by an act of Vis Major or due to circumstances beyond her control like the suspension of the working of the court and of the office of the Rent Controller or a general strike, she was prevented from making the requisite deposits or payments within the time. The defendant herself had made the deposits in question in the wrong name of one of the plaintiffs. Further, Section 17(2A) (a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act contains provisions for extension of time specified in sub-section (1) or (2) for the deposit or payment of any amount referred to therein. No doubt that sub-section (2B) of Section 17 provides for the time limits for making applications under Section 17(2A) but in several decisions of this Court it his already been laid down that Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appropriate case could be applied in respect of applications filed under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 17 (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. See M/s. Pokarmal Gurudayal vs. Sagarmal Bengani, 76 CWN 486. Further, Section 39 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 lays down that subject to the provisions of the said act all the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act shall apply to suits, appeals and proceedings under this Act. When such specific provisions exist in the Act for extension of time limit, I fail to see how the trial court in the instant case could have invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend the time for making deposits or payments under Section 17(1) by permitting the defendant redeposit of invalid rents. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Rule fails. I, accordingly, discharge this Rule without any order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below.