Toufique Uddin, J.This revision arose out of order dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, 3rd Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Sealdah in Ejectment case No. 1/2004. In the background of this proceeding the fact in a nutshell is that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment being Ejectment suit No. 1/2004 against the petitioner before the learned Additional Rent Controller, 3rd Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Sealdah on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent of Rs. 235/- payable according to the English Calendar month since August, 2000. The petitioner on receipt of summons of the said suit appeared therein with a view to contesting and filed an application u/s 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) stating inter alia that he is not a defaulter as alleged and has deposited monthly rent since April, 2000 till May 2004 in the Office of Rent Controller, Barracpore vide HRC No. 168/2001 and thereafter from June, 2004 has deposited monthly rent in the learned court below. As per usual practice and understanding with the Opposite Party the petitioner used to make payment of monthly rent to the Opposite Party for two or three months at a time and the Opposite Party accepted the same but for the purpose of filing the present suit she denied to receive the rent. As a result, the petitioner not finding any alternative deposited the same in the Office of Rent Controller, Barrackpore after the monthly rent was tendered by him to the Opposite Party. After receipt of the summons, the petitioner filed an application before the learned court below u/s 7(1) of the said Act praying for permission to deposit the current rent and prayed for permission to deposit the arrear rent from May 2004 by instalment.

2. On hearing, the learned Rent Controller without applying his mind, illegally passed order directing the petitioner to pay rent from December, 2000 to October, 2005 for 59 months and further he held wrongly that the deposit of rent by the petitioner was invalid in view of Section 21 of the said Act.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 21.9.2006 the petitioner has come up with this revision. Firstly he moved an application u/s 115/115A of the CPC before the learned Additional District Judge, Barrackpore on 22.11.2006 when the learned Judge rejected the petitioners revisional application holding inter alia that the court could not interfere with the order of the learned court below except when the order disposes of finally the suit/proceedings. Finding no other alternative the petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order No. 27 dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, 3rd Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Sealdah, filed this case.

4. Now, the point for consideration is if the impugned order suffers from any infirmity and calls for interference or not.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court should have considered the provisions made in Section 22 of the said Act of 1997 as amended and the learned Court below on misconception of law directed the petitioner to deposit rent for 59 months. From the order sheet it would be clear that the petitioner is not a defaulter and further it was contended that after refusal by the landlord, the petitioner deposited rent with the Rent Controller and is going on with the same.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party strenuously argued that the impugned order is quite ok. It was further argued by him that the rent for December, 2010 and January, 2011 was tendered at a time to the landlord. So, the deposit is invalid.

7. Further, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party drew my attention to Section 21 of the said Act as well as Section 13(2) thereof. His last but not the least argument was that since the initial deposit was invalid, so, the subsequent deposits were also invalid and in support of his contention he placed before me a decision as reported in (2001) 1 CLJ 12 [Gouri Chanda vs. Govinda Prasad Kejkiwal].

8. I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the materials on record. Section 7 of the said Act (relevant portion) reads as follows:

7. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction - (1)(a) On a suit being instituted by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in Section 6, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section 2 of this section, pay to the landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum.

(b) Such payment or deposit shall be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or, where he appears in the suit without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance.

(c) The tenant shall thereafter continue to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.

(2) If in any suit referred to in sub-section 1, there is any dispute as to the amount of the rent payable by the tenant, the tenant shall, within the time specified in that sub-section, deposit with the Civil Judge the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application for determination of the rent payable. No such deposit shall be accepted unless it is accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of the application, the Civil Judge shall, having regard to the rate at which rent was last paid and the period for which default may have been made by the tenant, make, as soon as possible within a period not exceeding one year, an order specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant and, thereupon, the tenant shall, within one month of the date of such order, pay to the landlord the amount so specified in the order:

Provided that having regard to the circumstances of the case an extension of time may be granted by the Civil Judge only once and the period of such extension shall not exceed two months.

8. The order No. 27 dated 21.9.2006 clearly shows that although the Opposite Party accepted rent for August, 2000 to November, 2000 by money order (vide Ext. 2) from August to November, 2000 that could not be regarded as invalid deposit but rent for the period from December, 2000 to April, 2001 for two months was sent but it was refused by the Opposite Party. Such deposit is also hit u/s 21 of the said Act. The first deposit is invalid and as such the subsequent deposits were held by the learned court below as also invalid and accordingly, the learned court below calculated the arrear amount and gave an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit arrear rent of Rs. 15251/- within 30 days from the date of passing the order. Section 21(3) of the said Act reads as follows:

21. Deposit of rent by tenant - (1) Where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the prescribed period, the tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by postal money order within fifteen days of such refusal.

(2) Where any tenant remits rent to the landlord by postal money order within the prescribed period and it is returned to the tenant by the postal authority as undelivered, either on account of the landlord having refused to accept the payment thereof or for any other reason, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller within fifteen days from the date on which it is so returned to the tenant. ....

9. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Section 7 and Section 21 of the said Act clearly shows that within 15 days of refusal by the landlord the tenant must deposit the rent with the Controller. Here, the petitioner does not appear to have done so. Within the prescribed period of limitation the petitioner has not deposited the rent.

10. Now, the decision as reported above (supra) shows that the principle regarding the deposit of rent as embedded in Section 17(2) of erstwhile West Bengal Premises Act, 1956 and that of in Section 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are same. The principles of above noted decision apply squarely in this case.

11. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and materials on record, I am of the view that the instant revision has no legs to stand upon and the impugned order needs no interference.

12. Accordingly, C.O. 2728 of 2007 stands dismissed.

13. I find no order as costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied, for, be given to the parties on priority basis.