JUDGMENT 1. THE order dated 12th August, 1975 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, city Civil Court, Calcutta has been challenged in the instant revision. In the present suit for ejectment, the tenant defendant came with a petition under section 17 (2a) (b) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, e956 with a prayer to pay the correct at a monthly instalment of Rs. 5/ -. In paragraph 2 of the said petition it was admitted by the petitioner that he had not paid rent for the months of September 1971 to March 1972. It was further stated that the tenant had been depositing rent with the Rent Controller since April, 1972. 2. THIS application was put up for orders on 5. 4. 74. On that very day both the parties filed a joint statement of account. Rent for the months of September, 1971 to March, 1972 at the rate of Rs. 221- per months (7 mouths)was calculated at Rs. 154 interest was calculated at Rs. 21/ -. Thus a sum of Rs. 175/- due was agreed to be paid in five equal installments. On the basis of this joint statement of account, it was ordered by the Court that the defendant was to pay the admitted dues of Rs. 175/- in five equal instalments of Rs. 35/- each, Subsequently the plaintiff filed an application under section 17 (3) of the Act for striking out the defence of defendant on the allegation that the defendant had failed and neglected to pay the amount equivalent to rent month by month within the statutory period. On scrutiny, it was found by the Court below that the rent for June. September and october, 1973 had not been deposited within the time prescribed. In the result, the application under section 17 (3) of the Act was allowed. It is against this order, the petitioner tenant has moved this Court. On scrutiny, it was found by the Court below that the rent for June. September and october, 1973 had not been deposited within the time prescribed. In the result, the application under section 17 (3) of the Act was allowed. It is against this order, the petitioner tenant has moved this Court. The main contention of the tenant is that all the arrears of rent were put on record in the joint statement of account dated 5th April, 1974 and the learned Judge passed the order under section 17 (2a) (b) of the act on the consent of the plaintiffs and at that time, the plaintiffs did not raise any objection as regards other defaults alleged to have been made by the defendant and waived their right of future dispute on that point and as such, the learned Judge was wrong in striking cut the defence against delivery of possession. 3. IT is contended by Mr. Bhattacharya for the opposite party that the petitioner in his petition under section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act admitted the default for the period from September, 1971 to march 1972 and he did not raise any dispute for any other month in the said petition. On the basis of the joint statement of account, the Court below by the order dated 5th April, 1974 was pleased to allow the petitioner to deposit the said arrears of rent by instalments. It is further contended by Mr. Bhattarharrya that under section 17 (2a) there is no scope to give any opportunity to pay the arrears of rent because the section is only for the purpose of extending time and for instalments. It is also pointed out by him that it is for the court to determine the arrear of rent. 4. THE petitioner, as it would appear from the petition filed under section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act, came for determining as to the arrears of his rent. Admittedly the rent for the period September, 1971 to March, 1972 was, in arrear. The rent since April, 1972 was said to have been deposited mite the rent Controller. While disposing of the matter on 5. 4. 74 the learned Judge on the basis of the joint account submitted by both the parties called upon the tenant to deposit the sum of Rs. 175/-in five monthly instalments of Rs. 35/-each. The rent since April, 1972 was said to have been deposited mite the rent Controller. While disposing of the matter on 5. 4. 74 the learned Judge on the basis of the joint account submitted by both the parties called upon the tenant to deposit the sum of Rs. 175/-in five monthly instalments of Rs. 35/-each. The order was peculiarly silent as to the validity of such deposits, though these related to the period prior to the application filed by the petitioner. Nor the landlord insisted on examining the validity of such deposits with the rent Controller. Sub-SECTION (2a) confers powers upon Court to pass necessary orders extending the time for deposit or payment of the amount referred to in section 17 (1) and 17 (2) of the Act. It also equally empowers the Court to permit the tenant to pay by instalments line sum which is required to be deposited or paid under sub-section (1). Clause (b) deals with Court's such power. In exercising such power the Court is to take into consideration the circumstances of the landlord and tenant and the total sum including interest required to be deposited under sub-section (1)and grant instalments. It is very pertinent to note that the Court has been given power to grant instalment of the total sum required to be deposited or paid under sub-section (1). So I cannot be in agreement with Mr. Bhattacharya that the Court had nothing to do with the matter. It was incumbent upon the court to find out what sum the tenant was. required to be deposited Or paid under sub-section (1). 5. THE proviso lays, down that when payment is permitted by instalments, such sum shall include all amounts calculated up to the end of the month previous to that in which the order under this sub-section is to be made. 6. THUS while passing the impugned order on 5th April, 1974 it was the duty of the court to take into consideration the arrear of rent upto March, 1974. It was the specific case of the tenant defendant that he had been depositing rent with the Kent Controller since April, 1972. In the circumstances it was incumbent upon the Court to examine the validity of such deposits before calling upon the defendant to deposit the admitted arrear of rent for even months with interest. The pro visions are mandatory. It was the specific case of the tenant defendant that he had been depositing rent with the Kent Controller since April, 1972. In the circumstances it was incumbent upon the Court to examine the validity of such deposits before calling upon the defendant to deposit the admitted arrear of rent for even months with interest. The pro visions are mandatory. It is not the case of the landlord chat the tenant failed to deposit or pay any instalment permitted under clause (b) of sub-section (2a) within the time fixed there for. On the other hand the landlord prayed for striking cut the defence against delivery of possession on the ground that some of the deposits with the Rent Controller were not valid. It appears that the court adopted the penal provision without complying with the proviso which lays down that before allowing payment may instalments the Court was to take into account all the amounts calculated up to the end of the month previous to that of the order. To impose such a penalty on the tenant, the landlord must bring him clearly within the language of failure to deposit or pay the amount as directed by the Court. So it is obligatory on the Court to see whether the tenant has really failed to comply with the order of the Court. 7. IN the circumstances the order passed by the learned Judge striking out the defence against delivery of possession cannot be sustained in law. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders being illegal are set aside. The learned court below would dispose of the application under section 17 (2a) (b)of the Act in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute, no costs.