JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– This is a revisional application at the instance of the defendant-petitioners and is directed against an order dated March 25, 1982 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 736 of 1978 of the 3rd, Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The application is being heard on notice to and upon contest by plaintiff-opposite-parties. The suit is for eviction of the tenant on the ground for default in the payment of rent and making unauthorised construction of a pucca nature resulting in material deterioration of the premises in suit. The petitioners, upon service of summons entered appearance and filed an application under section 17(2A) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act praying for determination of the amount of arrears of rent and for permitting them to deposit the arrears in instalments. The Court by an order dated January 18, 1979, determined the arrears at Rs. 2,510/- inclusive of interest and directed the same to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 200/- commencing from March, 1979. The current rent at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month was to be paid along with the instalments. 2. Now the petitioners' case is that the landlord-opposite-party filed an application under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for striking out the defence of the petitioners although the petitioner had been admittedly complying with the order of the Court by making over the current rent and the instalments with the Advocate's clerk for being deposited in Court. After the filing of tile application under section 17(3) the petitioners upon enquiry found out that the current rent for the months of April to September, 1979, that 4th to 8th instalments though deposited in time contained some mistakes in the chalans. There was, however, no mistake with regard to the names of the parties, the Bench in which the suit was pending, the number of the suit but there was a mistake with regard to the year of the suit. It was Suit No. 736 of 1978 but in the chalans it was wrongly written as 736 of 1979. Having detected this mistake the petitioner filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for correction of the chalans and for treating the deposits as being made in the particular suit. It was Suit No. 736 of 1978 but in the chalans it was wrongly written as 736 of 1979. Having detected this mistake the petitioner filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for correction of the chalans and for treating the deposits as being made in the particular suit. By the order impugned the learned Judge felt that the Court was not the appropriate authority to issue orders for correction of the chalans nor could the Court treat the deposits as having been made in the Suit No. 736 of 1978 when in fact the number of the suit as mentioned in the chalans is 736 of 1979. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge rejected the application and hence the present revisional application. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the facts. There is no dispute that the deposits were made in time. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel, even conceded that on the face of the records, it could not be said that there was any mala fides in so far as the wrong entry of the year of the suit is concerned but he contended that the Court could not correct the chalans nor has the Court any power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to treat the deposits as having been made in the Suit No. 736 of 1978. It is however, no body's contention that the deposits were intended for another suit, further it is nobody's case that there is a suit between the same parties numbered as 736 of 1979. It is apparent therefore that the mistake with regard to the year was a bona fide mistake. Even then, when entering into the question whether the Court can now correct the chalans, it may be pointed out that the Court while passing the chalans had a duty to see that it was in form. The Ministerial Officer-in-Charge has a duty to ascertain by reference to the records of the case that the amount tendered is correct and is due, from the person on whose account it is tendered to the person to whom it is stated to be payable and after correcting the chalans, if necessary, the Chief Ministerial Officer is to sign the relevant part of the chalan. In the instant case, it is clear that the Ministerial Officer-in-Charge failed in the in the discharge of his duties in ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the particulars furnished in the chalans. Had he scrutinised the papers in appropriate time the mistake would have appeared then and there and the chalans could have been corrected. Failure and lapse on the part of the Court's Officer cannot, in my view, prejudice the case of the petitioners when it could not be shown that the petitioners were acting with a mala fide intention in giving a wrong year of the suit. 4. Mr. Chatterjee, however, contended upon a reference to a single Bench Decision in the case of (1) Provabati v. Satyendra Nath, reported in 1978 (1) CLJ 629 that the Court could neither correct the chalans nor was the Court competent to give relief to the petitioners with the aid of section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. That was a case where the tenant was depositing rent with the Rent Controller even after the institution of the suit. The Court observed that there was a basic difference between deposits made by tenants when the landlord refused to accept amicably the rent tendered by the tenant and the deposits made in discharge of the statutory obligation under section 17(1). It was also to be noted that there was a mistake in regard to the name of the person in whose favour the deposits were made. The deposits were being made in the name of S. K. Chatterjee instead of S. N. Chatterjee. This apart there were four plaintiffs but the deposits were continued to be paid in the name of S. K. Chatterjee alone. In such circumstances, it was held that the prayer for correction of chalans could not be allowed by the Court. In regard to the prayer under section 151 of the Code, it was observed that there were provisions contained in section 17(2A)(a) for extension of time and since there were specific provisions in the Act for extension of time, section 151 of the Code could not be invoked, by permitting the defendant to redeposit the amount which have been invalidly deposited with the Rent Controller. From the facts stated above, it would appear that the present error made stands on a different footing. From the facts stated above, it would appear that the present error made stands on a different footing. Here there is no question of any chalans passed by the Rent Controller, being sought to be corrected by the Court. The question is whether a mistake in the chalan followed by an omission on the part of the Court's Officers resulting in an error in the chalans should be visited with the penal clause under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. I am unable to agree with Mr. Chatterjee that the decision cited by him is an authority for the proposition that in appropriate cases like the present one section 151 cannot be invoked. I am satisfied that the mistake in noting the year of the suit was a bona fide mistake and it was detected only after the application under section 17(3) was filed. This again is natural for experience tells us that the tenants too often remain satisfied on making over the money to the Advocate or his clerk hoping all the time that the amounts are being regularly and correctly deposited in the Court. If any mistake is committed by the Advocate's clerk in writing out chalans and if the Court's officer also failed to scrutinise the chalans before passing it, I feel the prayer as made in the instant case should be allowed. The chalans accordingly be corrected and the deposits be treated as having been mace in the Ejectment Suit No. 736 of 1978. The revisional application accordingly succeeds and is hereby allowed. There will be no order for costs. Let the order be communicated to the Court below forthwith.