JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– This is an application under section 115 of the Code and is directed against Order No. 102 dated April 6, 1982 passed by Shri S. Banik, Munsif, First Additional District Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 273 of 1978. The opposite party No.1 brought Title Suit No. 521 of 1976 against the petitioner for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent from July, 1976. Opposite party No. 1 on August 18, 1981 filed an application under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif by his Order No. 74 dated January 22, 1981 was pleased to reject the same. On June 15, 1981 opposite party No.1 again filed an application under section 17(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed written objection to the aforesaid application. But the learned Munsif, by the order referred to above, allowed the application under section 17(3) and hence the present application. From Order No. 74 dated 22.1.81 it appears that defendant No. 1 deposited the monthly rent in the name of the Court. He did not deposit the rent in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that it was on inadvertent mistake. The Court found that the defendant had no laches of his own and the Court should not take hyper-technical view. The mistake could be rectified by a court's order. In the circumstances, the Court was of further opinion that for this mistake penal provision of section 17(3) should not be invoked and as such the application under section 17(3) was rejected. 2. It was further ordered that the dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, will be beard at the time of peremptory hearing of the suit. It was also directed that an issue should be framed on that point. Even after this order, the defendant deposited rent in the name of the Court and not in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant's application under sections 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was disposed of by Order No. 46 dated 6.3.80. In these petitions the defendant did not dispute the relationship between the parties. In evidence the defendant admitted that the plaintiff was his landlord. The defendant's application under sections 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was disposed of by Order No. 46 dated 6.3.80. In these petitions the defendant did not dispute the relationship between the parties. In evidence the defendant admitted that the plaintiff was his landlord. It was stated that the defendant was inducted by Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharya at a monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. After Nirmal's death, he has been paying rent to the plaintiff and was granted rent receipts by him. In the written statement also the defendant did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. He only stated that the plaintiff was one of the owners of the suit property. In the petition of objection under section 17(3) it has also been stated that the plaintiff is not the sole owner. The learned Munsif was right to say that ownership is not necessary to determine the question relating to relationship of landlord and tenant. When the defendant admits that he was inducted by the plaintiff's predecessor and he was all along paying rent to the plaintiff's predecessor and after his death, to the plaintiff it must be said that the relationship of landlord and tenant very much exists and in view of these assertions the defendant cannot be allowed to take up that plea. 3. With regard to deposits, the learned Munsif found that even after condonation on the previous occasion the defendant failed to pay rent to the plaintiff or deposit rent in the Court in the name of the plaintiff. As such, the application under section 17(3) was allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant has come up to this Court. 4. Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that according to the provisions under section 17(1) of the Act the petitioner is entitled to deposit rent in Court and he has actually done so. In the section there is no provision that the defendant will have to deposit rent in the name of the plaintiff. I cannot agree with this submission. 5. The words "deposit in Court or with the Rent Controller or pay to the plaintiff" taken together mean that deposit in Court or with the Rent Controller must be in the name of the plaintiff. It cannot be deposited in the name of the Court. I cannot agree with this submission. 5. The words "deposit in Court or with the Rent Controller or pay to the plaintiff" taken together mean that deposit in Court or with the Rent Controller must be in the name of the plaintiff. It cannot be deposited in the name of the Court. Such deposits must be considered as in valid deposits. 6. In this connection, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits referring to the provisions in the Civil Rules and Orders that the Ministerial Officer scrutinized the challans and found no defect in the said challans and the same were passed. That means there was no defect, that was condoned when the challans were passed and such a condonation wilt be deemed to be a condonation by the Court itself. I cannot also accept this submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya. On the previous occasions, the Court was kind enough in not enforcing the penal provisions of section 17(3) and accepted the defendant's plea that it was an inadvertent mistake. But, even after that, the defendant deposited rents not in the name of the plaintiff but in the name of the Court. This time, the learned Court was quite justified in allowing the application under section 17(3). I find no merit in the present application and the same is rejected. There will be, however, no order for costs in this application.