S. CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges order No. 55 dated 28th February, 1986 and order No. 60 dated,30th April, 1986 passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 28 of 1984. ( 2 ) BY the first order, the learned Munsif has disposed of an application filed by the defendant/petitioner to decide the issue No, (vi ). It was contended that after the promulgation of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition k Regulation) Act, 1981, the interest of the superior landlord has vested in the State of West Bengal and the defendant has become a tenant under the State of West Bengal and the Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit as it has become not maintainable in law and the issue No. (vi) was suggested as to decide the question of jurisdiction of the court to try the case as to whether the defendant is a thika tenant under he plaintiff or not. Learned Munsif having considered the materials on record and disposed of the said application by deciding the issue No, (vi) as the Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit and the defendant is not a thika tenant under the plaintiff. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioner has come to this Court. The next order of challenge is the order No. 60 dated 30th April, 1986 as to the rejection of the petition of the defendant, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dated 23. 12. 85, as to condone the delay in depositing the amount equivalent to rent. The Learned Munsif found no explanation is to why the Challan could not be submitted on the 16th December 1985 and as such the same was rejected. ( 4 ) LOOKING at the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the learned Munsif ought to have considered the explanation for the delay in depositing the amount for two days and should have condoned the delay Considering this aspect of the, matter, the order No. 60 dated 30th April, 1986 is set aside and the application of the defendant/petitioner under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. ( 5 ) THE real contest between the parties is with regard to the order No. 55 dated 28th February, 1986. Mr. ( 5 ) THE real contest between the parties is with regard to the order No. 55 dated 28th February, 1986. Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has strongly argued that, any finding made under section 17 (2) and/or section 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 would be deemed to be an order to dispose of in interlocutory matter. Any order passed under sections 17 (2) or 17 (2a) of the Act cannot have any impact upon the disposal of the dispute, without giving adequate opportunity of adducing evince and to explain all the exigencies, if any, without proper consideration thereof Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate has strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1987 (1) CHN 362 (Nanda Gopal Das v. Rabindra Nath De and Anr. ). The attention of this Court has been drawn that the findings arrived at in determining the application under section 17 (2) of the Act are finally only for the purpose of such application and not for the purpose of the suit unless any material issue is also taken up for determination along with such application and that issue is also fully and effectively determined application. Referring to the said decision Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate far the petitioner has formulated his arguments before this Court that even if there is any admission by the defendant in the application under sections 17 (2) or 17 (2a) of the Act and/or in the evidence, leading to the dismissal of the said application, the learned Munsif ought to have considered and decided the issue No. (vi) by allowing the parties to adduce fresh evidence as available to them. The petition might have been misconceived, but the said issue is essentially an issue to be decided upon determination the law and on the facts thereto and the issue ought not be decided relying upon mere admission. Learned Advocate. for the contesting party has submitted that the matter is pending for a long time and in fact the defendant has unequivocally admitted to be a premises tenant and taking such a stand, the petitioner's application under sections 17 (2) or (2a) of the Act has been disposed of without any issue being raised as to the determination of the jurisdiction same is abso1uteiy speculative. Be that as it may, the learned Munsif has given full opportunity in full to the parties to consider the issue independently and finding the clear admission of the petitioner as a premises tenant, and since the admission has not been controverted and/or explained in any way, did not have any other alternative but to decide the issue holding, inter alia, that the defendant is not a thika tenant and the court has the jurisdiction to try the suit brought by the opposite as Landlord to determine the dispute as to eviction of a premises tenant. ( 6 ) IN support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the plaint respondent has referred to a decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 2085 (Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import and Ors ). In paragraph 17 of the said decision, it has been found that the admissions are the best proof of the evidence unless properly explained. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made on behalf of the parties and looking to the materials on record in depth, ties Court finds that the opposite party landlord had filed the suit for eviction treating the tenant to be a premises tenant The defendant had the opportunity to raise a dispute as to the relationship of a "landlord and tenant" by contending his status to be a thika tenant and/or to determine the dispute as to the amount of arrear rent and to seek necessary relief's. The defendant has to filed an application under section 17 (2), read with section 17 (2a) of the Act wherein he has unequivocally admitted that he is a premises tenant and has sought the relief's accordingly, The said application, by order No. 34 dated 6. 6. 85 and the parties had occasion to adduce evidence. The defendant/petitioner has also admitted before the trial Court that he is a premises tenant and has sought for the reliefs accordingly. It was open to the defendant to raise a question of jurisdiction and to challenge the relationship of landlord and tenant even within the scope of Section 17 (2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The defendant/petitioner has also admitted before the trial Court that he is a premises tenant and has sought for the reliefs accordingly. It was open to the defendant to raise a question of jurisdiction and to challenge the relationship of landlord and tenant even within the scope of Section 17 (2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. True, that the finding arrived at by the learned Munsif under Sections 17 (2) and (2a) of the Act cannot be a finding as to the final disposal of the suit and the issue has to be answered in accordance with law, but in the instant case, the issue No. (vi) as suggested by the petitioner was taken up for hearing. At the hearing the petitioner did not take any effective steps to explain the admission already made by the defendant. The pleadings and the evidence already or record clearly indicate, inter alia, that the petitioner is a premises tenant nod there is no further scope to adjudicate that the defendant is a thika tenant and on that score the Trial Court has no jurisdiction. Considering Looking with all anxieties, this Court does not find that the Learned Munsif has acted in material irregularity in exercising the power in disposing of the petition under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in deciding the issue No. (vi ). Unless there is anything wrong in exercising the jurisdiction, this Court will be slow to interfere in the matter. ( 8 ) REGARD being had to the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order No. 55 dated 28. 2. 86 passed by the Learned Court below. It is, however, made clear that any decision made by this Court in disposing of the revisional application will not preclude the petitioner to challenge the order in Appeal after the decision of the main suit, as provided in Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 9 ) WITH such observations, the revisional application is disposed of without any order for costs. All other orders are vacated. Application disposed of of.