Judgment : The present application has been taken out by the plain tiffs against the defendant no. 1, Calcutta Chromotype Private Limited Under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for an order striking out the defence of the defendant no. 1 against delivery of possession of the premises in suit and other consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner's case shortly is that, the petitioners are the owners of the premises No.1 Gibson Lane, Calcutta and the defendant no. 1 was a monthly tenant under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 1591.35p. On 6th of September, 1976 this suit was instituted against the defendants for eviction on the grounds that the defendant no. 1 being defaulter since the month of April, 1973 for a period of two months during a year and also because of the defendant no. 1 without the previous consent in writing of the plaintiffs wrongfully transferred, assigned and/or sublet part of the said premises to the other defendants as such the petitioners prayed for a decree for recovery of vacant possession. The writ of summons was duly served on the defendants on 15th of November, 1976 and defendant No. 1 has filed its written statement. On 3rd of January, 1977 the defendant no. 1 took out an application praying for leave to deposit with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta a sum of Rs. 1,228.45- being the balance amount of rent due for the months of Aril, May, June and July, 1973 with statutory interest in respect of the said amount, leave for depositing a sum of Rs. 1591.35p, being the rent for the month of November, 1976 and also for further leave to deposit the future monthly rent of Rs. 1591.35p. from December, 1976 onwards. The said application was moved before Mr. Justice Masud and His Lordship was pleased to pass an order on the 10th of December, 1976 in terms of prayer (a) of the petition, i.e., leave was granted to the defendant no. 1 to deposit the rent of Rs. 1591.35p. for the month of November, 1976 within 15th of December, 1976. Similarly leave was granted for the month of December, 1976 to be deposited within 15th of January, 1977 and that order was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 1 to deposit the rent of Rs. 1591.35p. for the month of November, 1976 within 15th of December, 1976. Similarly leave was granted for the month of December, 1976 to be deposited within 15th of January, 1977 and that order was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. According to Respondent No.1, as the owners of the premises failed to pay municipal taxes in respect of the said premises, Corporation had realised by way of distress warrant a sum of Rs. 4242.96- from the respondent no. 1 towards the owner's and occupier's shares of taxes payable by the landlords and as the landlord petitioners refused to reimburse respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 1 filed a suit in the Small Causes Court at Calcutta for recovery of the said sum with interest and costs. On November, 1970 a decree was passed in favour of respondent no. 1 against the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5135.09-. There after the respondent no. 1 made an application under Order 21 rule 46 prohibiting the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 and directing him to withhold the payment of the decretal amount of Rs. 3,623.34p. out of the sum of Rs. 4,774.05p. being the rent for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 and the Respondent no. 1 was directed by the Small Causes Court, Calcutta to deposit the said sum out of the rent for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 in Court. The respondent No.1 duly enclosed a cheque through a letter dated 23rd of July, 1973 and forwarded the same to the Registrar, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta. Under Emergency Risks (Factories Insurance Act), 1960 the petitioners herein became liable to insure the premises being the owner of the said premises. As the petitioners did not make the insurance the respondent insured the premises and paid the amount on behalf of petitioner. As the petitioners, according to respondent no. 1, failed or neglected to reimburse, the respondent no. 1 has to file a suit against the petitioners and a decree was passed for a sum of Rs. As the petitioners did not make the insurance the respondent insured the premises and paid the amount on behalf of petitioner. As the petitioners, according to respondent no. 1, failed or neglected to reimburse, the respondent no. 1 has to file a suit against the petitioners and a decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 944.68- with interest and costs and as the decretal amount was not paid the Respondent No. 1 made an application for execution of the said decree under Order 21 rule 46 and by an order dated 25th of July, 1973 passed by Small Causes Court, at Calcutta the Respondent No.1 was prohibited from paying to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,104.41- out of the rents for the months of April to July, 1973 and by a letter dated August 1, 1973 the said amount was remitted to the Registrar by the Respondent No.1. By a letter dated 2nd/4th August, 1973 the Respondent No.1 wrote to the plaintiffs stating that after deducting the said sum of Rs. 3623.34- and Rs. 1,104.41- the balance amount of rent for the month of May, 1973 would be Rs. 46.30p. and the Respondent No. 1 sent the same by postal mony order to the petitioners but the petitioners refused to accept the same. Thereafter another suit was filed for Rs. 401.95 for recovery of the insurance premium paid by the Respondent No. 1. Thereafter another application was made for execution and similar order but was passed prohibiting the Respondent No. 1 from paying the amount to the petitioners but directing remittance of the same to the Registrar, Small Causes Court, Calcutta which was done. The Respondent No.1 also wanted to make payment of the balance sum of Rs. 1082.15- as the rent for month of August, 1973 by postal money order but was refused by the petitioner as such the Respondent No. 1 applied before the Rent Controller and had been depositing with the Rent Controller rent from August 1973 to October, 1976. 3. The Respondent entered appearance through M/s. T. Banarjee and Company. 1082.15- as the rent for month of August, 1973 by postal money order but was refused by the petitioner as such the Respondent No. 1 applied before the Rent Controller and had been depositing with the Rent Controller rent from August 1973 to October, 1976. 3. The Respondent entered appearance through M/s. T. Banarjee and Company. According to the Respondent No. 1 because of the prohibitory order passed by the Small Causes Court, Calcutta in the suits filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the plaintiff the Respondent No. I did not pay the rent to the plaintiff and the said amount has been adjusted with the Respondent No. 1's decretal dues. The respondent No. 1 after obtaining an exparte order from this court deposited a sum of Rs. 1228.45- being the bllance amount of rent for the months of April, May, June, July, 1973; Rs. 341.10.- being the statutory interest thereon and also deposited the rent for the month of November to the tune of Rs. 1591.35- aggregating Rs. 3160.90- with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta on the 15th of December, 1976. On the application taken out by the Respondent No. 1 before Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury it was urged on behalf of petitioners that the application was taken under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the said application was misconceived as no application could be made under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with the Rules of the Original Side and further that application was also misconceived as there was no dispute with regard to the rents of the said premises It is an admitted fact that at all material times the admitted rent in respect of the said premises is Rs. 1591.35p and it was also urged by the petitioners before learned Judge that the Respondent No.1 should deposit the entire amount of arrears of rent as it had no right to adjust any amount against the arrears of rent on the contrary the respondent is bound in law to deposit the entire amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1) without making any deduction from the said arrears of rent towards the decretal dues. The said application was heard and disposed of by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury on 22nd of January, 1977. The said application was heard and disposed of by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury on 22nd of January, 1977. His Lordship held that the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to get the benefit under section 17(1) and extended the time for deposit of the rent till 24th February 1977. Thereafter the petitioners preferred an appeal which was disposed by The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Dutta in August, 1978 (1) [Since Reported in 1979 (1) CLJ 193] whereby the appeal was allowed and their Lordships held that the order of the trial Judge was not sustainable in law as no application is required to be made under section 17(1) nor any order of Court is necessary to make the deposit of the same in accordance with law under section 17(2) read with Rule 42A of the Chapter 24 of the Original Side Rules. The said rules indicate how the deposits are to be made. Their Lordship came to the conclusion that the impugned order as passed by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury was without jurisdiction and as such it was set aside except in regard to rent for the month of January, 1973 for which leave was granted to be deposited by February, 1977. The appellate court was pleased also to make it clear that the present petitioners would be at liberty to make an application under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act contending that the requirement of section 17(1) of the Act has not been complied with by the Respondent No. 1 and if such application is made the Respondent No. 1 would also be entitled to contend that it complied with the requirement of Section 17(1) of the Act and because of the failure of the petitioner's to reimburse the Respondent No.1 was not obliged to deposit or pay the rent month by month 15th of each succeeding month for a sum equivalent to a sum of Rs. 1591. 35- under section 17(1) of the Act. In violation of the said mandatory provisions of the Act the Respondent No. 1 did not deposit the rent with the Registrar. Original Side, High Court, During the pendency of the appeal on 13th of July, 1978 the Respondent No.1 paid the rent for the month of May, 1978 pursuant to an exparte order whereby Mr. In violation of the said mandatory provisions of the Act the Respondent No. 1 did not deposit the rent with the Registrar. Original Side, High Court, During the pendency of the appeal on 13th of July, 1978 the Respondent No.1 paid the rent for the month of May, 1978 pursuant to an exparte order whereby Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Roychowdhury extended the time to make that deposit till 13th of July, 1978. On the petitioner taking objection to the said order Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury ordered for a formal application being taken out by the Respondent No. 1 and was pleased to observe that His Lordship has not gone into the merits of the case as made out by the, petitioner under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and in any event it would be open for the petitioners herein to take appropriate proceedings as they may be advised under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act but all the same he gave permission to deposit the rent pursuant to the order passed on July 13th 1978 when the tenancy of the Respondent No.1 was terminated by a notice under section 13(6), the rent payable by the Respondent No. 1 was Rs. 1591 .35- per month. According to the petitioners, the Respondent No. 1 should have deposited in court within one month from the date of service of writ of summons i.e., 15th of November, 1976 a sum of Rs. 6365.40- calculated at the rate of rent on which it was last paid for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 together with statutory interest amounting to Rs. 1884.67 but the Respondent No.1 did not deposit the amount mentioned above. Deposits made by the respondent No.1 accordingly to the petitioners were not done in accordance with section 17(1) as the Respondent No.1 was not entitled to deduct any money whatsoever from the rent or the interest as such the Respondent No.1 has become defaulter. The petitioners further contended before me that Mr. Justice Salil K. Roychowdhury was not taking matters relating to land-lord and tenant or interlocutory matters as such any order extending time to deposit the said amount for the month of May 1978 was passed without jurisdiction; as such the said deposit for the month of May. The petitioners further contended before me that Mr. Justice Salil K. Roychowdhury was not taking matters relating to land-lord and tenant or interlocutory matters as such any order extending time to deposit the said amount for the month of May 1978 was passed without jurisdiction; as such the said deposit for the month of May. 1978 becomes irregular and invalid; hence this application has been made for necessary reliefs. 4. Mr. Bholanath Sen with Mr. Prodosh Kumar Mullick appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that first of all the orders passed by the Small Causes Court, Calcutta under Order 21 Rule 46 prohibiting payment of rent by the Respondent No.1 from paying the amount to the petitioners are invalid, whithout jurisdiction and not in accordance with law. Such orders were passed in the nature of the garnishee proceedings where an order is made on the garnishee directing the Respondent not to deposit or to pay any money to the judgment debtor and is directed to deposit in court the said amont or to show cause as to why such deposit could not be made by the Garnishee. In the present case the Respondent No.1 filed a suit, obtained a decree and in an application under Order 21 Rule 46 directed upon itself an order restraining itself from making payment to the petitioner. Secondly, according to Mr. Sen, even assuming those orders were valid and orders were-made in accordance with law, the prohibitory order would not excuse a tenant from depositing money under section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. He further submitted that the order passed by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roychowdhury extending time to make payment on the ground that there has been a honest mistake committed by T. Banerjee in respect of drawing up of the cheque; as such time should be extended for making the payment is also irregular as His Lordship did not have an) jurisdiction to pass that order beyond time fixed under section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The statutory provisions as made in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act are mandatory provisions and must be complied with by tenant and unless those are strictly complied with, deposits after deductions, would be invalid. The statutory provisions as made in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act are mandatory provisions and must be complied with by tenant and unless those are strictly complied with, deposits after deductions, would be invalid. If there is any non-payment or short payment within the specified time that would amount to defaults, The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, is a self contained code and a complete code; as such an application should be made within four corners of the said act and the provisions thereunder must be strictly complied with. 5. Mr. Bhabra, appearing with Pranab Kumar Pal submitted that from the perusal of the plaint it would appear that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in respect of recovery of arrear of rent for the months of April. May, June, and July, 1973 which has become time barred; as such it is not recoverable by the plaintiff. The respondent is not under any obligation to deposit the rent which is not recoverable by the plaintiff; as such the Respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be guilty of default and the defence as set out could not be struck out in that respect he carved reference to a decision reported in (2) 65 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1093. According to Mr. Bhabra Order 21 Rule 46 does not prohibit the judgment creditor from getting an order of injunction restraining itself from paying any money due to the judgment debtor. As there is no dispute regarding amount due and payable in respect of rent as such it was not necessary for his client to take out an application under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Further he submitted that even assuming that the Small Causes Court, Calcutta has passed a wrong order that would not entitle this court to come to t he conclusion that the said court had no jurisdiction to pass such order and in that respect he referred to cases reported in (3) AIR 1964 SC 907 and (4) AIR 1954 SC 340 . So far the default in respect of month 'May, 78' is concerned, according to Respondent No.1 the learned Judge had ample authority and inherent jurisdiction to pass an order extending time to make deposit of the rent for the month of May, 1978. So far the default in respect of month 'May, 78' is concerned, according to Respondent No.1 the learned Judge had ample authority and inherent jurisdiction to pass an order extending time to make deposit of the rent for the month of May, 1978. In that respect he referred to a case reported in (5) 75 CWN 342 and submitted that even under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court has jurisdiction to extend time for the purpose of depositing the rent. He submitted that although an appeal was pending in respect of an order passed by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury in respect of payment of rent for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 and the appeal court had complete seisin over the matter. Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Choudhury was not debarred from passing an order in respect of payment for the month of May, 1978. He further referred to cases reported in (6) 60 CWN 121; (7) AIR 1971 Calcutta 226; (8) AIR 1973 Calcutta 123; (9) AIR 1976 Calcutta 328. 6. Sub-section (2B) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act provides "No application for extension or time for deposite of payment of any amount under clause 4 sub-section (2A) would be entertained unless it is made before the expiry of the time specified thereby under sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) and no application for permission to pay instalments under clause (b) of Sub-section (2A) would be entertained unless it is made before the expiry of the time specified in section 17 on account of default of payment of rent"; As such it appears from the facts that such application for extension of time for payment was not made before the expiry of the time; as such according to the petitioner the court was not en titled to entertain such application. Moreover by an order passed by the appeal court it has been held that the trial Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such order. In terms of subsection (3) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act where a tenant fails to deposit within the time specified or within such extended time made by court the defence against delivery of possession be struck out and the court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. In terms of subsection (3) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act where a tenant fails to deposit within the time specified or within such extended time made by court the defence against delivery of possession be struck out and the court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. Here the questions which arise for determination are first of all whether the prohibitory order passed by the Small Causes Court, Calcutta entitled the Respondent No. 1 to claim that the money payable by them to the landlord has been paid to the Registrar, of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta pursuant to the said prohibitory order; as such the Respondent No.1 is under no obligation to pay twice over to the Registrar of the Original Side, High Court money equivalent for the rent for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973. Secondly whether the plea that the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the said- rent is time barred is available to a tenant to set up as a defence in an application under section (3) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 7. In the case reported in (10) AIR 1978 SC 287 , K. G. U. Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Mendir, it was held that 'there is ample authority for the proposition that though a debt is time-barred, it will be a debt due though not recoverable the relief being barred by limitation. In Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edition) Volume 24 at page 205 Article 369, it is stated "except in the cases previously mentioned, the Limitation Act, only takes away the remedies by action or by set off; it leaves the right otherwise untouched and if a creditor whose debt is statute barred has any means of enforcing his claim other than by action or set-off the Act does not prevent him from recovering by those means. The Court of Appeal in 42 Chancery Division heard "Statute barred debts are dues, though payment of them cannot be enforced by action"...............The same view was held by Supreme Court of India in (11) AIR 1958 SC 328 where it was held that the statute of limitation only bars the remedy but does not extinguish the debt, except in cases provided for by Section 28 of the Limitation Act... ..... ..... The law is well settled that though the remedy is barred the debt is not extinguished". Where the tenant fails to avail himself of the opportunity of depositing the rent and has not paid the rent within one month from the date of the service upon him of the writ of Sumuons the landlord would be entitled to take out an application for an order asking the defence of the tenant to be struck out on the ground that he has not deposited the entire amount due and in that case protection is no more available to the tenant and the entire amount of rent due would include rent which has become time barred; as such contention of Mr. Pal that in any event the plaintiff's claim for the rent for the month of April, May, June and July, 1973 have become time-barred; as such Respondent No.1 is under no obligation to deposit the same in terms of section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is unsustainable. 8. In the case reported in (12) 79 CWN 89 (Hanuman Estates v. Dhanuka Industries) a Division Bench of this High Court had to consider whether the statutory liability to deposit equivalent of rent under section 17 is discharged by notice of the probibitory order under Section 226(3), Income Tax Act, 1961. There no rent was paid to the landlord on the ground that the tenant was served with a notice under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to pay to the revenue authorities any money whatsoever that was due from the tenant to the landlord. There no rent was paid to the landlord on the ground that the tenant was served with a notice under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to pay to the revenue authorities any money whatsoever that was due from the tenant to the landlord. It was held that the prohibitory notice under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot have the effect of overriding the special provisions of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and thereby absolving the tenant from his statutory obligation to deposit sums equivalent to rent in court." Under Section 17 of the said Act, the statutory obligation has been imposed on the tenant against whom a suit or proceeding for ejectment is instituted to deposit in court or with the Controller or pay to the landlord within one month from the service of the writ of summons all arrears of rent with interest and there is however all obligation of the tenant to go on depositing month by month by 15th of the following month sum equivalent to rent. Only after performing or discharging the above mentioned obligation the tenant is entitled to the protection against eviction and if the tenant does not discharge the obligation mention therein his defence so far possession is concerned will be struck out. 9. In the case reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 328 a Division Bench of this Court held that an obligation to pay an amount equivalent to rent or to deposit the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act is a statutory obligation which cannot be regarded as having been superseded or taken away by the introduction of Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These two Acts operate in different fields. These two Acts operate in different fields. The payment made by a tenant in compliance with the notice constitutes a good and valid discharge of a tenant's liability to pay rent to the assessee landlord to the ex tent of the amount paid but it could not have the effect of overriding the provisions of Section 17(1) or (2) of the Act with the result that the tenant, in order to avail of the protection of Section 17 must show that the payment to the income-tax authorities were made within time strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1) or (2) of the Tenancy Act and their Lordship relied on the case reported in (13) 79 CWN 88. "The general provision enumerated in Section 226 of the Income Tax Act does not abrogate special provisions of section 17 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act". 10. In the case reported in (14) AIR 1965 SC 1909 the Supreme Court held that "the Rent Act is a tenancy Act and a complete scheme by itself and the Legislature by its introduction intended that the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord must be made in the manner prescribed by Sections 17(i) of the Act in any suit or proceedings to which the said provisions apply". 11. Mr. P. K. Paul has urged that in view of the decisions reported in AIR 1973 Calcutta 123 and AIR 1976 Calcutta 328 and also because of the decision reported in 75 CWN 342 this Court has ample power to extend the time to make payment under section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has inherent power in appropriate cases even to extend time in respect of deposit to be made under section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It has also been urged that in proper cases and for extreme circumstances court should exercise such power. In the case reported in AIR 1973 Calcutta 123 it has been held that "the Court has recognised relaxation in regard to the provisions of the statute which may even be mandatory. Court has also granted relief in such cases even though the other party has been thereby deprived of a benefit or right under the mandatory provisions of law". In the case reported in AIR 1973 Calcutta 123 it has been held that "the Court has recognised relaxation in regard to the provisions of the statute which may even be mandatory. Court has also granted relief in such cases even though the other party has been thereby deprived of a benefit or right under the mandatory provisions of law". There the learned Judges in paragraph 17 of the judgment have stated about the special circumstances when such discretion should be exercised and the Court also came to the conclusion that "In short as it is impossible to exhaust all circumstances, there may be supervening circumstances which may come into existance in the appropriate time making it impossible for one to perform his part of activity. A court of law cannot be blind to such events but has to recognise them and mould its procedure accordingly. We are unable to accept the contention put in the extreme form that the Court has no power in any circumstances to travel beyond the provisions of the statute and the sword of justice has to fall as soon as there is a violation of the provisions of the statute irrespective of any other consideration." It has further been held in that case "It will, however, be for the defaulting party on the facts of his case to establish that there has been no negligence or inaction on his part in complying with the requirements of the provisions of the statute or of the Court's order based thereon and the default or failure occured only because of the supervening circumstances which could not be tided over in spite of his best diligence and further as soon as the obstacles has been removed he had taken all steps as was required under the law and his conduct in the matter has been bona fide as through". Applying the same principles in the present case although there may be ground for extending the time for payment of the deposit in respect of May, 1978 as there has been an honest mistake on the part of the advocate on record, in writing out the cheque whereby he included five paise more and because of correcting the same there has been some delay; as such time could be extended in respect of deposit for the month of May, 1978, but here the petitioner's case for striking out defence is not only for non-payment of the deposit for the month of May, 1978 but also for non-deposit in full and within time for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 for which there is no sufficient cause for non-compliance within the requisite provision. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits Mr. Pal also relied very strongly on the case reported in 65 CWN 1093 on the point that the tenant is not required to deposit or pay in respect of the time barred rent which are not recoverable from him because of provision of the limitation; but in the case reported in AIR 1978 SC 287 it has been held that the entire amount of rent due would inc1ude rent which has become time barred. Although time for making deposit was extended by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roychowdhury His Lordship made it very clear that would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties specially without prejudice to any application that may be taken out by the landlord under section 17(3). In the case reported in (15) 64 CWN 157 a Division Bench or this High Court held that in an application under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defendant's allegation that he has already made the payment to the landlord; even if it were true but when a suit has been filed, within one month of the service of summons the tenant should have deposited under section 17(1) the arrears of rent; as the tenant failed to do that as such he suffered a statutory penalty prescribed under section 17(3). The said case also considered "the question may arise as to whether the defendant tenant can claim the benefit of the extended period under section 2 by merely raising any dispute, however, false his allegation may be and in our opinion he has no such absolute right and if the Court thinks that the dispute was a false one, raised malafide simply to get benefit of section 2 and supporting allegations were false, then there be no dispute which would full within sub-section (2) and bring it within section (2)" 12. So far as the arrears for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 are concerned question of condonation of delay under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not arise as there are no special circumstances. I am of the opinion and hold that the payments by Respondent No. 1 to the Registrar, Small Causes Court, Calcutta towards the purported satisfaction of the decretal amount under order 21 Rule 46 are not valid payments in terms of the provisions of W.B.P.T. Act. Even assuming such payments were made bonafide and in accordance with law that would not excuse the tenant from making deposits in court within one month from the service of the writ of summons with the Registrar of the Original Side, High Court, Calcutta the arrears of rent for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 together with interest in view of the provisions of the Act as also in view of decisions quoted above. So far as the deposit for the month of May, 1978 is concerned although the Respondent No.1, for no fault of it, was delayed for making deposit in July, 1978 but that alone would not be of any help to Respondent No.1 as default for the months of April, May, June and July, 1973 have already become operative because of non-payment and or short payment made within the time specified by the statute as such I am inclined to pass an order in favour of the petitioner in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the notice of motion. 13. There will be a stay of operation of the order for ten days. Suit to appear in the list a fortnight hence for hearing.