JUDGMENT 1. THIS revisional application is directed against an order dated 7th October 1980 passed by the learned Munsif, Nabadwip in Title Suit No. 55 of 1978 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 17 (21)and (2a) (a) and (b) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 (hereinafter called the Act 2. THE plaintiff/opposite party has instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent at Its 45/- per month payable according to English, Calendar month for six months from February to July 1978 and that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. After the summons had been served on the defendant on 15.8.78 he appeared and filed an application under Section 17 (1)of the Act on 14.9.78 for permission to deposit rent in Court for the period from September 1978 and it was allowed. On the same day the defendant filed another composite application under section 17 (2) and (2a) (a) and (b) of the Act for determination of the amount payable to the plaintiff towards the arrears of rent and permitting the defendant to deposit the amount to be so determined in 12 monthly instalments and/or for passing necessary orders. The defendant contended therein that he was not a defaulter for six months and that the plaintiff had taken Rs. 75/- as advance in June 1972 and December 1977 which amount was to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. The plaintiff opposed the application contending inter alia that it was not maintainable. The learned Munsif has held that the advance of Rs. 75/- in excess of the amount of one month's rent was not legally receivable by the plaintiff in view of Section 5 (b) of the Act and that the. defendant having failed to deposit the amount admitted to be due from him towards the arrears of rent along with his application as required under section 17 (2) of the Act, the application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. In that view the trial court has dismissed both the prayers under Section 17 (2) and under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the defendant made in his composite application. 3. In that view the trial court has dismissed both the prayers under Section 17 (2) and under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the defendant made in his composite application. 3. HAVING heard the learned advocate for the parties and considered the materials on record I find that the learned munsif has committed an illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction by, rejecting the defendant's prayer under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act although he has rightly rejected the application under Section 17 (2) of the Act. 4. SUB-SECTION (2a) of section 17 of the Act in view of its opening words is 'non obstante'. It is an overriding provision to a limited extent. It shall prevail inspite of anything to the contrary in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as to the time for payment or deposit of the arrears of rent, if an application is made within the time prescribed in section 17 (2b) of the Act. The consequence of the non obstante provision may be started. As clause (a) of Section 17 (2a) refers to both sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 17 the court can extend the time specified in sub-section (1; or in the final order made under subsection (2) of Section 17. 5. BUT clause (b) of Section 17 (2a) refers to sub-section (1) only of Section 17 and therefore, the Court can permit to deposit or payment by instalments of the sum to be deposited or paid under sub-section (1) of Section 17 only and in -view of the proviso to clause (b) such sum shall include the arrears upto the end of the month previous to the month in which the order granting such, permission is made. It follows that under Section 17 (2a) (b) the Court cannot permit payment or deposit by instalments of the amount determined after adjudication under sub-section (21 of Section 17, to be paid or deposited within a time fixed in the final order passed in such adjudication. 6. THE learned advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party in support of his contention that the learned Munsif has rightly rejected the defendant's prayer under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act as relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge Ambika Bhattacharjee J. in p. N. Sanyal v. Hara Prasad Sarkar 1977 (2) CLJ 323 and the decision of the learned Single Judge. Dhiresh Chandra chakraborty J. in Bhim Chandra Patra vs. Sm. Nirmala 1978 (2) CLJ 323 . The view taken in both the cases aforesaid is that the court cannot permit payment by instalments of the amount determined under Section 17 (2) of the Act because Section 17 (2a) (b) has no application to the amount to be deposited under section 17 (2) of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party on the decision of the learned Single Judge R- Bhattacharjee J. in k. A. Hassain -vs- F. Rahaman 78 CWN 678. In that case there were pre suit arrears for the period from June to November 1970 and post-suit admitted arrears for the period from December 1970 to April 1972. The defendant in that case did not pray for permission to pay by instalments the arrears for the period from December 1970 to April 1972 under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act and did not deposit the admitted arrears. It has been held that in such circumstances the trial court was justified in rejecting the defendant's application under Section 17 (2) and (2a) of the Act. in my view the facts in the reported case are different and it is therefore distinguishable. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party that as the defendant/petitioner in his application before the trial court prayed for permission to deposit by instalments the amount to be determined after adjudication under Section 17 (2) of the Act his prayer for relief under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act was not maintainable and the trial court has rightly rejected it. But I am unable to accept this contention. Where the tenant's application under Section 17 (2) is found to be not maintainable for failure to deposit the admitted amount of arrears due from him along with the application, there is no determination after adjudication under Section 17 (2) of the Act of the amount payable by him so as to preclude the tenant from getting the benefit of section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act in respect of the arrears payable under Section 17 (1) of the Act. Where the tenant makes a composite application under Section 17 (2) and (2a) (b) of the Act and the application under Section 17 (2) is not maintainable the court has to deal with the application as one under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act. No doubt the prayer in the composite application in the present case has not been happily worded as the court for reasons already stated cannot permit payment of the amount determined under Section 17 (2) by instalments contemplated in Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act. But a party should not be deprived of the relief to which he is entitled merely because he has not coached his prayer for such relief in appropriate words. Genuine claims should not be defeated by looking at the form and overlooking the substance of the relief sought for. In the present case the defendant in his composite application also prayed for such necessary orders as the court would deem fit and proper. In my view the trial court should not have rejected the defendant's prayer for relief [under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act merely because the application under Section 17 (2) is not maintainable. It has been observed by the learned Judge Chittatosh Mookerjee J. sitting singly in Laxmi Narayan vs. Durgapada Karmakar AIR 1981 Calcutta 352 at page 354 as follows :- "when an application under Section 17 (2) is not entertained on the ground that the defendant tenant did not deposit the amount admitted by him to be due, his other prayer under section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act cannot be automatically dismissed. In the event such prayer under Section 17 (2a) (b) has been made within the time as specified in Section 17 (2b), the court is under a statutory duty to consider the circumstances of the tenant and also that of the landlord and the total sum inclusive of interest required to be deposited or paid under sub-section (1) on account of default in payment of rent and to permit the tenant to pay or deposit the total sum due by such dates as the court may fix". 7. I respectfully agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid decision. 7. I respectfully agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid decision. I hold that in the present case the learned Munsif ought to have allowed the defendant's application under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the act and in not doing so has committed a jurisdictional error. 8. IN the result the revisional application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. The impugned order rejecting the defendant's prayer under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act is set aside. The learned Munsif is directed to hear the application under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the Act on merits within two months of the arrival of the records in the trial court. No order is made as to costs. Rule made absolute.