Judgment: This Rule is directed against an order made by the learned Munsif when on behalf of the defendant petitioner the question regarding the maintainability of the application under S. 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was raised before him. The learned Munsif found the application under S. 17(3) to be maintainable and fixed July 25, 1979 for hearing of the said application. 2. This case has a chequered career. For purposes of disposal of the present Rule it is necessary to state briefly some of the relevant facts preceding the making of the order impugned by the learned Munsif. The present Title Suit being Title Suit No. 204 of 1965 (on transfer re-numbered as Title Suit No. 127 of 1970) was instituted sometime in 1965 and the suit was for the eviction of the tenant who is the present petitioner and the sole ground taken was the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant petitioner filed an application under S. 17(2) of the said Act and went on depositing Rs. 50/- Per moth in the trial court. His case was that by a compromise effected earlier between the parties the defendant was to pay rental of Rs. 125/- per month with effect from a certain date on condition that the plaintiff opposite party effected certain alterations and repairs in respect of the suit premises and that as the said alterations and repairs were not effected the defendant was to pay rental at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The said application under S. 17(2) was disposed of by the learned Munsif who was of the view that the tenant was liable to pay Rs. 50/- per month and not Rs. 125/- Against that order of the learned Munsif disposing of the application under S. 17(2) the plaintiff opposite party moved a revisional application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application gave rise to Civil Revision Case No. 1168 of 1973 which ultimately came up for disposal before C. N. Laik, J. His Lordship set aside the order of learned Munsif and dismissed the application under S.17(2). The defendant accordingly moved the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal form the said deision of C. N. Laik, J. The Supreme Court while summarily dismissing the leave application made the following observations: “Mr. The defendant accordingly moved the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal form the said deision of C. N. Laik, J. The Supreme Court while summarily dismissing the leave application made the following observations: “Mr. Chatterjee says that the court below had no jurisdiction to dismiss the petition because dismissal of the petition precludes him form depositing the rent and according he can apply for direction to the court concerned, if so advised” 3. Thereafter on September 30, 1974 the defendant filed before the trial court an application under S. 17(2A)(b) and as that application was filed beyond time, another application under S.5 of the Limitation Act was filed on January 17, 1975. The learned Munsif allowed both the applications under S.5 of the Limitation Act as also the application under S. 17(2A)(b). On being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Munsif allowing both the applications under S. 5 of the Limitation Act and under S.17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the plaintiff moved an application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a Rule being Civil Rule No. 3944 of 1975 was issued on the basis of that application. That Rule was finally heard and disposed of by S.K. Datta, J. His Lordship set aside the order of the learned Munsif and dismissed both the applications, namely, application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act and the application under S. 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and made the following observation: “In view of the above order the learned Munsif now has to dismiss the application under S. 17(2A)(b) of the Act and in view of the directions of the Supreme Court he has to pass appropriate orders under S.17(2) of the Act in accordance with law with regard to the amount of rent due together with accrued interest and fixing a time limit for depositing the said amount in court or for payment to the landlord.” 4. Thereafter the learned Munsif took up for disposal the defendant’s application under S. 17(2) and by his order No. 183 dated June 13, 1978 he found that the defendant was liable to pay arrear rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month for 10 years 7 months from February, 1964 to August 1974 amounmting to Rs. 9525/- and statutory interest thereon amounting to Rs. 7647.12. The total amount of Rs. 75/- per month for 10 years 7 months from February, 1964 to August 1974 amounmting to Rs. 9525/- and statutory interest thereon amounting to Rs. 7647.12. The total amount of Rs. 17172.12 was directed by the learned Munsif to be paid to the landlord by August 10, 1978 in presence of the presiding officer of the court or to deposit the said amount in court. There is no dispute that the said sum of Rs. 17172.12 wsa put in within the time allowed. It is also not disputed that with the leave of court the plaintiff withdrew the said sum. An application under S. 17(3) which was earlier filed on behalf of the plaintiff was awaiting disposal. On behalf of the defendant a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said application under S. 17(3) was raised. The learned Munsif took up that preliminary objection and the impugned order is the order that was made by the learned Munsif on the question of maintainability of the application under S.17(3) By that order the learned Munsif held that the application under S. 17(3) was maintainable and he fixed July 25, 1979 for the hearing of that application under S. 17(3). 5. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, contends that the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in holding that the application under S. 17(3) was maintainable even though in terms of his order bearing No. 183 dated June, 13, 1978, the learned Munsif disposed of the dispute raised under S. 17(2), determined the amount due by way of arrear rent and statutory interest thereon and requiredthe defendant to pay to the landlord or to put in the sum so determined together with interest by August 10, 1978, and even though the total amount of arrear rent and statutory interest thereon as determined by the learned Munsif war put within the time allowed. Section 17(3) reads as follows: “If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-s. (1) or sub s. (2) within he time specified therein or within such extended time as may be allowed under clause (a) of sub-s. (2A) or fails to deposit or pay any instalment permitted under clause (b) of sub-s. (2A) within the time fixed therefore, the court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with hearing of the suit.” What in substance Mr. Mukherjee contends is that after the determination by the court under S. 17(2) of the arrear rent due from the tenant if the tenant deposits the amount so determined within the time fixed by the court for the purpose, an application under S. 17(3) will be not maintainable. 6. Mr. Brojendra Nath Chakroborty Thakur, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party, points out that the application under S. 17(2) stood disposed of by reason of the said order made by C. N. Laik, J. in Civil Rule No. 1168 of 1973. I have already pointed out that while disposing of that Rule C. N. Laik, J. dismissed the application under S. 17(2). Mr. Thakur further drew my attention to the said order which the Supreme Court made while summarily dismissing the application for special leave to appeal from the said decision of C. B. Laik, and his contention is that order of the Supreme Court did not in any way cause revival of the application under S. 17(2) which stood dismissed as a result of the order made by C. N. Laik, J. The true import of that order of the Supreme Court is that when the application for special leave was being dismissed summarily, on the prayer of Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner in that leave application, the Supreme Court simply observed that the defendant could apply for direction to the court concerned for depositing arrear rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month, if so advised. This was the direction given by the Supreme Court as said Mr. Chatterjee brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that by reason of the dismissal of the leave application the defendant would be precluded from depositing the arrear rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month which he was willing to pay. This was the direction given by the Supreme Court as said Mr. Chatterjee brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that by reason of the dismissal of the leave application the defendant would be precluded from depositing the arrear rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month which he was willing to pay. I cannot but agree with Mr. Thakur when he contends that there is nothing in the order of the Supreme Court which effects a revival of the application under S. 17(2). Further S. K. Datta, J. while disposing of the said Civil Rule No. 3944 of 1975 directed the learned Munsif to dismiss the application under S. 17(2) of the Act in accordance with law with regard to the amount of rent due together with accrued interest and to fix a time limit for depositing the said amount in court or for payment to the landlord. The order of the Supreme Court referred to above was interpreted by S. K. Datta, J. in a way which leaves no doubt that his Lordship took it that under the order of the Supreme Court the trial court was to pass appropriate orders under S. 17(2) with regard to the arrear rent due and the interest accured thereon. That order of S. K. Datta, J. become final. In obedience to that order the trial court ascertained the amount of arrear rent due from the defendant to the plaintiff and the statutory interest due thereon and it required the defendant to pay to the landlord or to deposit in court within August 10, 1978 the total sum of Rs. 17172.12, being the amount of arrear rent and statutory interest. That order of the learned Munsif determining the arrear rent and the statutory interest and requiring the defendant to put in such sums also became final as neither of the parties came up against that order before the superior court. Further it was rightly pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee that in obedience to the order of S. K. Datta, J. both the parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif and had the amount of orrear and the statutory interest ascertained. In these circumstances, Mr. Mukherjee contends that now that the defendant in obedience to the order of the learned Minsif deposited within the time allowed the said entire sum of Rs. In these circumstances, Mr. Mukherjee contends that now that the defendant in obedience to the order of the learned Minsif deposited within the time allowed the said entire sum of Rs. 17172.12 the plaintiff opposite party cannot be permitted to challenge the propriety of the learned Munsif said order No. 183 would be tantamount to compliance with the relevant provision of S. 17(2) and the learned Munsif would be not justified in holding that there was failure to deposit or pay the amount ascertained to be due under S. 17(2) within the time specified therein. That time would have to be fixed by the trial court after ascertainment of the arrear rent due. That was done in the present case and the defendant was required to pay to the landlord or to put in within August 10, 1978 the amount ascertained in accordance with the provisions of S. 17(2). The learned Munsif can hold that the application under S. 17(3) was maintainable only if he ignores the said order No. 183 made by him on June 13, 1978. I have already pointed out that S. K. Datta, J. in interpreting the order of the Supreme Court was of the view that by that order the Supreme Court required the trial court to determine the arrear rent under S. 17(2). That interpretation of S. K. Datta, J., as pointed out by Mr. Thakur, may be not a proper interpretation. But the parties accepted such interpretation and as none of them challenged the order of S. K. Datta, J. that order became final and the learned Munsif in determining the amount due under S. 17(2) was only giving effect to that order of S. K. Datta, J. 7. A question may arise as to what would happen when there are two conflicting orders made at different stages of the same proceeding. In the present case under the order of C. N. Laik, J. the application under S. 17(2) stood dismissed. Thereafter in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court referred to above and the directions given by S. K. Datta, J. in Civil Rule No. 3944 of 1975, the application under S. 17(2) was required to be disposed of by the learned Mansif, That was ultimately done by the learned Munsif deposited within the time allowed the arrear rent and the statutory interest thereon as determined by the trial court. In such circumstances, to my mind, when there is conflict between two orders made inter parties, the later order is to supersede the former. In this regard reference may be made to the decision in Mathura Prosad Rajgharia & anr. v. State of west Bengal & anr, AIR 1973 Cal 288 . In that view of the matter and in the circumstances discussed in the foregoing paragraphs it has to be held that the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in not taking note of his earlier order, namely, order No. 183 while disposing of the question as to the maintainability of the application under S. 17(3). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the application under S. 17(3) is not maintainable in view of the fact that the defendant complied with the order of the trial court determining the arrear rate due from him together with interest and requiring the defending to pay to the landlord or to put in such sums within August 10, 1978. 8. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute, The application under S. 17(3) is found to be not maintainable. There will be no order for costs. Rule made absolute.