JUDGMENT 1. THE opposite party instituted Ejectment suit No. 12 62 of 1976 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the petitioner alleging inter alia that the petitioner in the present Rule was a monthly tenant under the opposite party in respect of. Flat No. 5 in premises No. 57, Elliot road, Calcutta-16 at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month payable according to the English Calendar month, and he was a defaulter in payment of rent since the month of March, 1976. The petitioner filed applications under Section 17 (1), 17 (2) and (2a) (a) and (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the said applications were opposed by the opposite party by filing written objections. The learned Judge, 5th Bench, city Civil Court, Calcutta by his order dated 27. 9. 82 after adjudicating the question of default held that the arrears of rent due from the petitioner was Rs. 17,757. 60 P and the petitioner was directed to pay the said arrears of rent by instalments at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month in addition to the current rent of Rs. 350/- per month. The learned Judge although in his said order had found that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for 58 months, he held that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent for 50 months. The learned judge also did not direct the petitioner to deposit the statutory interest accrued on the total amount of arrears of rent. Against the said order the opposite party moved a Revisional Application in this Hon'ble Court on 15. 10. 82 and obtained a Civil Order. Ultimately, however, the said Civil order being No. 3250 of 1982 was rejected by this Court on 17. 12. 82 as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the said Civil Order. Subsequently, an application for restoration was also filed in this Court which was also rejected on June 24, 1983. The opposite party in the meantime filed an application for review, before the learned Judge of the Court below on 9. 10/82, of his earlier order dated 27. 9. 82 which was opposed by the petitioner and at the time of hearing of the said review application it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the order dated 27. 9. 10/82, of his earlier order dated 27. 9. 82 which was opposed by the petitioner and at the time of hearing of the said review application it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the order dated 27. 9. 82 was challenged in revision in this Court and the revisional application was disposed of by this Court, the said order had merged with the order of this Court and as such the said order could not be reviewed by the learned judge and in support of his said contention the petitioner cited the decision reported in A. I. R. 1970 S. C. page 1. The learned Judge 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, however, vide his order no. 92 dated 15. 7. 83 allowed the said application for review inter alia upon a finding that since the High court did not reject the opposite party's application for revision after hearing both parties, it could not be said that the order dated 2 7. 9. 82 had merged with the order of the High Court and that there were errors apparent on the fact of the records of the case inasmuch as although by the said order dated 27. 9. 82, the Court below had found that the petitioner was a defaulter for 5 8 months yet it committed an error in calculating months of default as it had said that the petitioner was to pay arrears of rent for 50 months only and the Court below also made an error in not directing the petitioner to deposit the statutory interest. Against the said order dated 15. 7. 83 the petitioner has moved this Court in Revision and obtained the present Rule. 2. MR. P. Singh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted before me that since this court had disposed of the Civil Order No. 3250 of 1982 obtained by the opposite party against the order dated 27. 9. 82, by rejecting the revisional application upon which the said Civil order was issued the said order (Bated 2 7. 9. 82 had merged with the order of this Court1 and the said order could not be reviewed by the learned Judge of the Court below. Subsequently, mr. Singh in support of his contention referred to the above decision of the supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 SC at page 1. Mr. 9. 82 had merged with the order of this Court1 and the said order could not be reviewed by the learned Judge of the Court below. Subsequently, mr. Singh in support of his contention referred to the above decision of the supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 SC at page 1. Mr. Singh has also contended that payment of interest at the statutory rate on the total amount of arrears of rent is not mandatory according to the provision of Section 17 (2)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and it is not obligatory for the' Court while directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 17 (2) to direct the tenant to deposit also the interest on the amount of rent determined and on such ground the court ought not to have reviewed its earlier order and in support of his contention Mr. Singh referred to the decision reported in 78 CWN 570. 3. MR. Barua, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted before me that since the review application was filed in the Court below before the issuance of the aforesaid Civil Order, even if the said Civil Order was ultimately disposed of, the court had power to take up the review application subsequent to the disposal of the said civil Order and dispose of the same on merits. In support of his said contention Mr. Barua referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC at page 1372. 4. AFTER hearing the learned Advocates and going through records of the case and also the impugned order I am, however of the view that the learned Judge had ample power to entertain the review application filed by the opposite party and dispose of the same on merits even if the order sought to be reviewed was challenged in revision in this Court and the said revisional application was rejected. The opposite party's said revisional application was dismissed for default as nobody on behalf of the opposite party was present to press the revisional application at the time of hearing of the aforesaid civil order. Therefore, it could not be said that this Court had rejected the said revisional application and/or the Civil order on merits. The opposite party's said revisional application was dismissed for default as nobody on behalf of the opposite party was present to press the revisional application at the time of hearing of the aforesaid civil order. Therefore, it could not be said that this Court had rejected the said revisional application and/or the Civil order on merits. The decision cited by the petitioner before me reported in AIR 1970 SC page 1 (Sankar Ram Chandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatrya Bapat) also will not help the petitioner inasmuch as the said decision is distinguishable on facts. In that case the revisional application filed by the petitioner against a particular order was dismissed by the high Court on merits after hearing both parties and then the order against which the said revisional application was filed was sought to be challenged in the High. Court again under articles 226 and 22 7 of the Constitution of India and the supreme Court on the said facts held that since the High Court had already disposed of the [revisional application, the said order could not be challenged once again under Articles 22 6 and 22 7 of the Constitution of India because if there were two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes had been chosen and excused, it would not be a proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set or proceedings in respect of the same order of the Subordinate courts. In the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 1 372 (M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradeshl, the Supreme Court held that the crucial date for determining whether or not the terms of Order XLVII Rule 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied, is the date when the application for review is filed. If on that date no appeal has been filed, it is competent for the court hearing the petition for review to dispose of the application on merits notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only to this, that if before the application for review is finally decided, the appeal itself has been disposed of, the jurisdiction of the Court hearing the review petition would come to an end. In the present case admittedly the view application was filed before the Court below on 9. 10. In the present case admittedly the view application was filed before the Court below on 9. 10. 82 when the petitioner had not moved this Hon'ble Court in revision against the aforesaid order of the learned Judge dated 27. 9. 82. Of course, the revisional application subsequently moved before this court on 15. 10. 82 was ultimately rejected on 17. 12. 82 for default and the disposal of the review application on 15. 7. 83, but since the revisional application was not disposed of on merits by this Court the rejection of the said revisional application would not stand in the way of disposing of the review application by the Court below subsequent to the rejection of the said revisional application. 5. IN the decision of Arun Kumar Chatterjee vs. Karuna rakshit, 78 CWN page 572, it was held that the payment of interest at the statutory rate is not mandatory according to the provisions of Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act and is not obligatory far the Court while directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 17 (2)to direct the tenant to deposit also the interest on the amount of rent determined. The said decision, however, has not laid down the law that the Court cannot pass an order directing the tenant to deposit the amount of rent determined under section 17 (2) along with the statutory interest. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above I hold that the order of the learned Judge challenged in this ' Rule does not suffer from any material irregularity or there has been any error in the exercise of the jurisdiction on the part of the learned Judge in passing the said order and as such I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 6. THE Rule is accordingly discharged. There will be no order as to costs. The records be sent down immediately. Rule discharged.