JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner in the Revisional Application has challenged the legality of the Order No. 92 dated 17. 12. 85 passed by the learned First Additional Munsif at Alipore, 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 68 of 1985 by which order the learned munsif held that the petitioner 'was a defaulter in payment of rent from April 1980 to February 1982 at the rate of Rs. 550/-per month payable according to English Calendar, i. e. for 2 3 months total arrears of rents amounting to Rs. 12,650/- and he was to pay the said amount with statutory interest of Rs. 2050/- within the time specified in the said order. By the said order the leaned Munsif also disposed of the petitioner's application under section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) (b) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 2. THE landlord/opposite party instituted Title suit no. 437 of 1980 in the 2nd Court of the learned Munsif at Alipore, 2 4-Parganas against the petitioner for his eviction from the suit premises inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rents since April 1980 and also on the ground of reasonable requirement for the own use and "occupation of the landlord/ opposite party and her family. The case as made out by the landlord/opposite party in the plaint inter alia was that she was the owner of the suit premises and the petitioner was a monthly tenant under her in respect; thereof at a rental of rs. 5 50/- per month payable according to the English Calendar. The case as made out by the landlord/opposite party in the plaint inter alia was that she was the owner of the suit premises and the petitioner was a monthly tenant under her in respect; thereof at a rental of rs. 5 50/- per month payable according to the English Calendar. The opposite party was living in United Kingdom along with her husband and sons and as such she had empowered M/s. "talbot and Company to look after her property in India including the suit premises and also the collect rent from the petitioner; that subsequently she had cancelled the power given by her in favour of M/s. Talbot and Company and asked the said company not to receive any rent from the petitioner and the said fact of cancellation of the authority was also intimated to the petitioner; that rent till March 1980 was collected by M/s. Talbot and Company from the petitioner and thereafter the said company stopped collecting the rent from the petitioner; that as the family of the opposite party would shortly come over to India and reside permanently here in the suit promises the same was required for her own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of her family members; that in March 1980 when the opposite party came to India for a short period she requested the petitioner to vacate the suit, premises but the petitioner refused to vacate. The petitioner only entered appearance and contested the suit and filed his written statement denying and disputing the case as made out by the opposite party in the plaint. The petitioner only entered appearance and contested the suit and filed his written statement denying and disputing the case as made out by the opposite party in the plaint. In the written statement the petitioner had stated inter alia, that by the purported cancellation of the Power of Attorney in favour of M/s. Talbot and Company the opposite party wanted to make the petitioner a discounter in payment of rent as there was none in India who could collect the rent from the petitioner on behalf of the opposite party and he also could not tender the rent in respect of the suit premises to the opposite party because of the Foreign Exchange regulation and as a matter of fact inspite of his best effort, the petitioner could not collect the names of any person or persons within India who could collect the rent from the petitioner and as such rent could not be paid inspite of the best desire of the petitioner and he also could not deposit the rent with the Rent Controller as the rent could not be sent to the opposite party in United kingdom by money order and there was none in India to whom such tender could be made. 3. THE petitioner also filled applications under Section 17 (1), 17 (2a) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in the suit along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the same and the said delay was condoned. The opposite party contested the said applications under Sections 17 (1), 17 (2a) (b) filed by the petitioner by filing written objections. The said Title suit no. 437 of 1 980 of the 2nd court of the learned Munsif at Alipore, 24-Parganas was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned 1st Additional Munsif at Alipore and was renumbered Title Suit No. 63 of 1985. The said Title suit no. 437 of 1 980 of the 2nd court of the learned Munsif at Alipore, 24-Parganas was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned 1st Additional Munsif at Alipore and was renumbered Title Suit No. 63 of 1985. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application in the said suit under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the original application under Section 17 (2) and (2a) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act praying for insertion of the fact of the petitioner's financial, difficulties in the matter of payment of arrears of rent at a. time and also prayed for deletion of the prayer for clearing up the arrears of'1 rent with statutory interest and for inclusion of the prayer for depositing the arrears of rent by monthly instalments and the said application for amendment was ultimately allowed by the learned Munsif. 4. THE petitioner later on, filed another application under section 15 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for treating his application under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956 as an application under section 15 1 of the code Of Civil Procedure and the petitioner's application under section 17 (2) and (2a) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act were all disposed of by the leaned Munsif by the impugned order. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing or. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing or. behalf of the petitioner has submitted before me that the petitioner could not be held to be a defaulter in payment of rent from April, 1980 as there was no willful non-payment of rent, on the part, of the petitioner', which he is to pay under section 4 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in the facts of this case as the tenant inspite of his best wishes and desire and/or attempt, failed to pay rent to the landlord and such non-payment does not amount to default and the tenant might be said to be in arrears in payment of rent but not a defaulter and for such arrears interest are not required to be paid under the different provisions of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as the said section 17 deals with the question of default, and in such view of the matter the order of: the learned Munsif challenged in the Revisional Application suffers from material irregularities and cannot be sustained in law. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the entire amount determined by the learned Munsif by the impugned order has already bed deposited in Court. 5. MR. Sudhis Das Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the caveator and landlord/opposite party, however, has submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner in his application under section 17 (2) read with Section 17 (2a) (b)of the West. Bengal Premises Tenancy Act had categorically stated inter alia, that he did not know too whom he should pay rent for the suit premises and fanvited the court to determine the arrears of rent payable by the petitioner and also prayed for easy instalment for such payment along with statutory interest, the petitioner could no longier say that he was not a defaulter in payment of rent and the subsequent prayer made by the tenant in his application under section 15 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for treating his application under Section 17 (2) and section 17 (2a) (b) of the said Act and application under Section 17 (2a) (b) only would change the position in law. Mr. Mr. Das Gupta further submitted that since the petitioner admitted that he did not know to whom he was to pay the rent as M/s. Talbot and Company the agent of the landlord in India who was accepting rent from the petitioner, due to cancellation of Power of Attorney granted by the landlord to it, refused to accept rent from the petitioner from April, 1980 and as rent could not be paid directly to the landlord, the petitioner ought to have made an application for deposit of such rent before Rent Controller under Section 2 1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act and that not having been done, the petitioner was surely a defaulter in payment of rent since April, 1980. 6. MR. Mukhejee in reply referred the decision reported in i. L. R. 1967 (1) Calcutta page 449 in support of his contention that even if the tenant failed to apply under section 17 (2)or did not raise any objection under Section 17 (2) of the West bengal Premises Tenanct Act, it did not absolve the Court of the responsibility cast up it by the different provisions of Section 17 of the said Act of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in order to. come to proper finding whether the tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent, considering of facts and circumstances of the case. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions of both the learned- Advocate and going through the impugned order and the revisional application and the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the case I am, however, of the view that the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of rent since April, 1980 and as such he is liable to pay the arrears of rent along with the statutory interest under provisions of Section 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act whether by instalments or by getting extension of time. I respectfully do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee that in order be a defaulter in payment of rent it has to be proved that the tenant willfully did pay the rent due from him. 7. I respectfully do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee that in order be a defaulter in payment of rent it has to be proved that the tenant willfully did pay the rent due from him. 7. FROM the scheme of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 it is quite clear that by the word 'default' the framers of the Act merely wanted to refer to the fact of non-payment of rent for any particular period and the word 'default' does not connote any blame-worthy conduct on the part of the tenant. The tenant makes default in payment of rent if he does not pay the rent in due time whether willfully or not and/or whether there is any blame-worthy conduct on the part of the tenant in making such payment. The same view has also been taken by this Court in the Division Bench judgment of M/s. Shree Nursing timber Works and M/s. Nursing Electric Works v. Smt. Amala Bala dassi, reported in 7 3' CWN page 522. The said view was also later on accepted by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Durga Devi v. Rebati Ranjan Chakraborty and ors., reported in 86 CWN at page 1169 in which Mukerjee, J, delivering the judgment of the: Court referring to and approving the decision in M/s. Shree Nursing Timber Works (supra) held that "default" under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act means non-payment of rent by a tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The tenant under Section 4 (1) of the Act has the statutory obligation to pay to the landlord the fair rent or the rent agreed upon as the case may be. Such rent under sub-section (2 of Section 4 shall be paid within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract by the 15th day of the month following the month for which it is payable. The expression "default" in payment of rent has been used in the Act in its technical or literal sense of "nonpayment of rent". The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act not having qualified the expression "made default in payment of rent" while deciding an ejectment suit, the Court is not required to enquire into the reasons for making such default whether the same was deliberate, willful or intentional. 8. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act not having qualified the expression "made default in payment of rent" while deciding an ejectment suit, the Court is not required to enquire into the reasons for making such default whether the same was deliberate, willful or intentional. 8. THEREFORE, when the tenant does not pay the rent due, within the time prescribed by Section 4 of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, he makes default in payment of' rent. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the tenant after the refusal on the part of M/s. Talbot and Company to accept rent from his on behalf: of the landlord made any attempt to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller under Section 2 1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Such attempts of course were made but those were all subsequent to the date of institution of the ejectmemt suit and as such the same would not alter the position of the tenant in law- Furthermore, when the tenant made a specific prayer before the Court below for treating his application under. Section 17 (2) and 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises. Tenancy ; Act only as an application under Section 17. (2 A) it must be held that the tenant admitted that he was a defaulter by not raising such c dispute under section 17 (2) inasmuch as under the provision of Section 17 (2a) really speaking there is no scope for determination of the dispute whether the tenant is a defaulter or not. Section 17 (2 A) deals only with the payment and/or deposit of the amount referred to in Section 17 (1) or 17 (2) by extension of time or by instalments as the case may be. 9. THE decision referred to by Mr. Mukherjee reported in 1 LP. 1967, (1) Calcutta at page 449 (Tirupati Sen v. Paresh Sen), however, in my view does not apply to the facts of the present case. There the question was that even if the tenant did not raise the dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant under section 17 (2) of the West 'bengal Premises tenancy Act or even did not make any application under the said Section 17 (2), still then it was the duty of the Court to decide such relationship before making an order under Section 17 (3) of the said Act. In this case, however, -the tenant did not raise such dispute under Section 17 (2) nor did he challenge, even in the written statement the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 10. IN the above view of the matter I hold that the petitioner was rightly held to be a defaulter in payment of rent from april, 1980 by the learned Munsif and the learned Munsif had also rightly directed the petitioner to pay the statutory interest on the total amount of arrrears of rent for which he was adjudged as a defaulter. The Impugned order of the learned munsif in my opinion therefore does not suffer from any material irregularity or that the learned Munsif has exceeded his jurisdiction or has exercised his jurisdiction erroneously in passing the impugned order and as such I am not inclined to interfere with the said order. The revisional application is thus disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Application disposed of.