JUDGMENT 1. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Srivastava and the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Partha Datta appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Manzurul Haque. Considered the materials on record. 2. The tenant defendant as the petitioner has made this application under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging Order No. 43, dated 4.5.95 passed by the learned Munsif. 2nd Court, Sealdah, 24-Parganas (South), in Title Suit No. 500 of 1990, whereby the learned Munsif rejected the application of the tenant defendant made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for condonation of delay in depositing the rent, on a finding that the Court has no jurisdiction to condone such delay as the deposit has been made before the Rent Controller. So, the entire question in this revision centres round the question of jurisdiction. Before dealing with that, a short recital of the fact leading to this revision is necessary to be enumerated. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the tenant under the opposite party in respect of the property in suit at a monthly rental of Rs.700/-. For the purpose of evicting the tenant, the landlord has brought the suit for eviction before the Court of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah, being Title Suit No. 500 of 1990. The suit was brought originally on the ground of default. Subsequently by amendment of the plaint a further ground has been added i.e. the ground of reasonable requirement. Admittedly, the tenant defendant did not make any application before the trial Court under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Prior to the institution of the suit, the tenant defendant deposited the rent in terms of Section 21(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Even after the institution of the suit, the tenant paid the rent in the same way as has been alleged by the tenant defendant (petitioner herein) in his revisional application in depositing the rent for the month of February 1991, November 1992, August 1993 and November 1993, the tenant could not deposit the said rent within the 15th of the next month and the rent for the month of February 1991 was deposited on 26th March, 1991. Similarly, the rent for the month of November 1992 was deposited on 17th December, 1992, the rent for August 1993 was deposited on 16th September, 1993 and the rent for November 1993 was deposited on 17th December, 1993. For the purpose of condoning the delay in depositing the said rent. the tenant made an application before the Trial Court on or about 12th January, 1995, The said application was opposed by the landlord raising the question of jurisdiction of law as taken in Paragraph 3 of that written objection. 3. Be that as it may, the landlord made another application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956, alleging inter alia, that the tenant had neither deposited the arrear of rent nor the current rent. That application is awaiting adjudication 4. According to Mr. Srivastava the Court has ample jurisdiction to condone the delay in depositing the rent even if that has been deposited before the Rent Controller. In support of his submission Mr. Srivastava relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) M/s. B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Another reported in AIR 1987 SC 1010 . He particularly placed reliance on Paragraphs 15 and 16 of that decision at pages 1014-1015. The ratio that has been laid down in these two paragraphs of the decision is that the provision of Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is not a mandatory but a discretionary one and that where the default is not one of non-payment of arrears of the rent for the subsequent period but a technical default due to delayed payment, the Court has the power to exercise jurisdiction to condone the said default. 5. Mr. Srivastava also placed reliance on a decision of this Court passed by a learned Single Judge in the case of (2) Gopal Shaw v. Konailal Pakhira reported in 1988(1) CHN 31 . to show that even if there is default of payment of rent before the Rent Controller the Court has the jurisdiction to condone the delay and that the provision of Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is not mandatory but a discretionary one. Reliance was also placed by him upon a Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of (3) Krishna Gopal Ghoshal v. Mihir Baran Nandy & Ors. Reliance was also placed by him upon a Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of (3) Krishna Gopal Ghoshal v. Mihir Baran Nandy & Ors. reported in 1987(1) CHN 472. In that reference was made by the Special Bench for answering the question posed by the Division Bench, viz., whether or not poverty would be a ground for condonation of delay in depositing the rent in terms of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The Special Bench in their own wisdom recast that question and formulated the points for decision as under :- "(1) Has the Court any jurisdiction to condone the delay or to extend the time for deposit or payment of sums specified in subsection (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act? (2) If the Court has such jurisdiction, is poverty or financial handicap of the defendant-tenant a ground for condonaticn of delay or extension of time in making deposit or payment under subsection (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act?" 6. In my view, the above decision has no manner of application in the instant case inasmuch as admittedly in this case no application was made under sub• section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 7. The question in this case is whether poverty would be a ground for condonation of delay. In the case of Gopal Shaw (supra) an application was made by the tenant under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, though originally no application was made under Section 17(2A). A prayer was made before the learned Munsif by the tenant to convert that application under Section 17(1) to an application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A). The plaintiff landlord also filed an application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for striking out the defence of the defendant against the delivery of possession. By one order the learned Munsif disposed of both the applications. In that connection the learned Single Judge opined that the provision of Section 17(3) is not a mandatory one but a discretionary provision. By one order the learned Munsif disposed of both the applications. In that connection the learned Single Judge opined that the provision of Section 17(3) is not a mandatory one but a discretionary provision. The learned Single Judge also opined that the default on the part of the defendant occurred due to mistaken legal advice and the question of not filing such an application could not have arisen if the amount of rents for the period in question had been duly deposited by the clerk of the defendant's learned Lawyer. The learned Judge also found that the application made by the defendant in the suit substantially contained all the averments necessary to sustain his prayer for extension of time to deposit in terms of Section 17(2A)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In that decision it has been held that mere technical defect of the application not being in proper form or not having contained appropriate prayer should not expose the tenant to the penalty of his defence being struck out where admittedly the fact is that there has been no remiss or negligence on his part. On that finding that revisional application was allowed. 8. According to Mr. Srivastava, sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act does not contemplate of filing the application at the time of depositing of any arrear admitted by the tenant. Admittedly, as has already been pointed out, no application has been made by the tenant-defendant either under Section 17(1) or under Section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the aforesaid Act contemplates of two applications. I have already pointed out that the ground for eviction is default. Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act reads as follows:- “If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant shall within the time specified in sub-section (1), deposit in Court the amount admitted by him to be due from him together within an application to the Court for determination of the rent payable.” 9. So it is one application. Thereafter, the said section envisages that “no such deposit shall be accepted unless it is accompanied by as application for determination of the rent payable”. So it is one application. Thereafter, the said section envisages that “no such deposit shall be accepted unless it is accompanied by as application for determination of the rent payable”. So, this contemplates of another application. All the decisions referred to also point out that there must be an application under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for the payment of arrear of rent. No such application has been made before the Trial Court for treating the said application as an application under Section 17(2) or (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Only an application has been made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. I am told that no challan has been filed before the Trial Court showing payment of either arrear or current rent alleged to have been deposited by the tenant before the Rent Controller or deposited in Court. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the defendant-tenant-petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court regarding the payment of rent and as such the Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. 11. The revisional application is, accordingly, rejected. There will be no order as to costs. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner from seeking his appropriate remedy according to law.