JUDGMENT (1.) THE petitioner is absent even today. Mr. Panchanan Pal appearing on behalf of the opposite party has placed the entire thing. The records have been perused. The facts are not in dispute. (2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction. Ultimately the tenant petitioner filed an application under section 17" (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, admitting the rate of rent and the period of default. He asked for direction from the court to pay the arrears of rent in easy monthly installments. An objection was filed. Ultimately the parties came, to terms and filed a joint statement, which was accepted by the court. . On 11-4-1979, a direction was given according to the provisions of section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act to the defendant to pay the arrear rent with interest amounting to Rs. 5484. 42/- p. in monthly installment of Rs. 140/- per menses from May, 1979. The further direction was that the interest was to be paid within the 7th day of each month. The tenant was unable to carry out that order. Then an application under section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure was filed by the applicant. He pleaded that he was financially distressed. So the rate of the monthly installment should be reduced to Rs.30/- per month. The prayer was rejected. That rejection gave rise to the present revisional application at the instance of the tenant defendant. Mr. Pal appearing on behalf of the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the revisional application. It has been stated that in view of the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code made in 1976 section 11.5 of the Code of. Civil Procedure has undergone a radical change. In view of such amendment of section 115 of the Code this revisional application does not lie. He has referred to the decision of Ram Narayan vs. Seth Sao reported in A.I.R. 1979 Pat. 174. (3.) SECTION 115 of the Code of Civil procedure stands amended by the amending act of 1976. Civil Procedure has undergone a radical change. In view of such amendment of section 115 of the Code this revisional application does not lie. He has referred to the decision of Ram Narayan vs. Seth Sao reported in A.I.R. 1979 Pat. 174. (3.) SECTION 115 of the Code of Civil procedure stands amended by the amending act of 1976. The relevant portion thereof says that provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of -a suit or other proceeding except where (a) The order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. (4.) THIS case is squarely covered by the clause (b) of that aforesaid proviso. If the defendant is unable to pay the installment as ordered by the court, his defence against delivery of possession is liable to be struck out according to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Sec. 17 of the West Bengal Act XII of 1956. And that will be an irreparable injury within the meaning of clause (b) of that proviso. I, therefore, hold that there is no substance in such objection and the present Revisional application is maintainable. Then about the merits. It has been pointed out on behalf of the opposite party that on 11-4-1979 the parties were ready in the trial court and the application under section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act was put up for hearing. At that stage a joint statement was filed by the parties. That petition was accepted in accordance with the submissions made by the parties. The court ordered that the application was allowed on admission. The defendant was directed to pay the arrear rent with interest amounting to Rs. 5484. 42 p. in monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 140/- per mensem beginning from May, 1979. Interest was also directed to be paid within the 7th day of every month. The tenant petitioner failed to carry out this direction. Now the question arise what is the effect of such, failure. 5484. 42 p. in monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 140/- per mensem beginning from May, 1979. Interest was also directed to be paid within the 7th day of every month. The tenant petitioner failed to carry out this direction. Now the question arise what is the effect of such, failure. in the Bench Case of Haripada Kanungo -v- Saha reported in 80 C. W. N. 481 a Bench of our Court has stated that the authority conferred by section 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to extend time for depositing the arrears of rent prescribed under section 17 (2) of the Act is not to be exercised in an arbitrary, manner or as a matter of grace. Extension of time can be granted only on proffer sufficient cause for the delay being shown to the satisfaction of the court. The, tenant failed to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause not to carry out such direction. Since he did not succeed in satisfying the court that he had sufficient cause for the delay, the application was rightly rejected. Hence he cannot ask for any relief in this court. The Rule is, therefore, discharged. There will be no order for costs. Rule, discharged No costs.