ivil Appeal No 875 of 1964
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 10 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No 4439 of 1962
NC Chatterjee and D Goburdhan for the appellants
PK Chatterjee and DN Mukherjee for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar CJ
Appellant No 1 Kaluram Onkarmal was let into possession of the premises described as holding No 182H GT Road Asansol as a monthly tenant under Harbhajan Singh Wasal who was the owner of the said premises
The rent agreed to be paid was Rs 35 per month payable according to the English Calendar
It appears that in 1953 the Calcutta National Bank Ltd now in liquidation sued the owner Wasal on the original side of the Calcutta High Court on a mortgage
In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed and in due course it was followed by a final decree
During the proceedings of the said suit Mr KK Ghose was appointed Receiver of the mortgaged properties including the premises in the present suit
On February 18 1960 the Receiver put the mortgaged properties to sale and the respondent Baidyanath Gorain purchased them
The said sale was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court on March 1 1960
That is how the respondent became the owner of the suit premises along with other properties under mortgage
After he acquired title to the suit premises in this manner the respondent informed appellant No 1 about the same by his letter dated the 2nd April 1960
On December IL 1961 the respondent sued appellant No 1 and appellant No 2 Kaluram Bajranglal in the First Court of the Muns if at Asansol for ejectment
He claimed vacant possession of the premises let out to appellant No 1 on several grounds
He urged that he reasonably required the premises for rebuilding them after demolishing the existing structure
According to him the existing structure had become very old and was in a dilapidated condition
He also alleged that appellant No 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to appellant No 2 and that he had failed to pay or deposit the rents for the last three years in accordance with law
The claim for ejectment thus made by the respondent was disputed by appellant No 1 on several grounds
Appellant No 1 denied that the respondent required the suit premises for rebuilding and also disputed his allegation that he had sublet the said 36 premises unlawfully
In regard to the averment made by the respondent that appellant No 1 had failed to pay or deposit the rents due for the last three years appellant No 1 made a detailed dental
He urged that the rents had been regularly paid to the owner in tune before August 1960 and he pleaded that since the month of August 1960 when he found that the owner was not prepared to accept the rents from him he deposited them with the House Rent Controller Asansol from month to month
It was his case that notice had been served on the owner in respect of these deposits from month to month as provided by section 213 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 Act XII of 1956 herematter called the Act 
The written statement further averred that the deposit of the monthly rent continued to be made regularly under section 21 and that the rent for March 1962 had been duly deposited on April 10 1962
This written statement was filed on April 11 1962
During the pendency of this suit the respondent made an application under section 173 of the Act and claimed that the defence of appellant No 1 against delivery of possession should be struck out because he had failed to deposit or pay the amount in Court as required by section 171 of the Act
This application was strenuously opposed by appellant No 1 on the ground that section 173 could not be invoked against him in view of the fact that he had been depositing the rent from month to month under section 21
and he urged that the deposit of rent thus made by him amounted to payment of rent by him to the respondent under section 223 and therefore
no default had been committed by him at all
This dispute raised the question about the true scope and effect of the provisions of section 173 and section 223 of the Act
The learned trial Judge held that notwithstanding the fact that appellant No 1 had been depositing the rent from month to month under section 22 with the Rent Controller having regard to the provisions contained in section 171 his failure to deposit the relevant amount in Court incurred the liability to have his defence struck out under section 173
In coming to this conclusion the learned Judge followed a decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Abdul Majid vs Dr Samiruddin1
Having held that section 173 applied the learned Judge directed that the defence raised by appellant No 1 against the claim of the respondent for delivery of possession of the suit premises must be struck out
This order was challenged by both the appellants by preferring a revision application before the Calcutta High Court
Before this revision application reached the stage of hearing the question raised by it had already been concluded by a majority decision of the Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Siddheswar Paul vs Prakash Chandra Dutta2
The learned single Judge who heard this 1 2 AIR 1964 Cal
37 revision application was naturally bound by the said majority decision and applying the said decision he held that the order passed by the learned trial Judge striking out the defence of appellant No 1 under section 173 of the Act was justified
It is this order which is challenged by Mr NC Chatterjee on behalf of the appellants in the present appeal which has been brought to this Court by special leave
Mr Chatterjee contends that the majority decision of the Special Bench in Siddheswar Paul s case1 is erroneous and has proceeded on a misconstruction of the tone scope and effect of the two relevant section of the Act sections 17  22
That is how the short question which falls for our decision in the present appeal is what is the true scope and effect of the provisions prescribed by sections 17 and 22 of the Act It appears that the Special Bench in Siddheswar Paul s case was divided on this issue the three learned Judges have taken the view that section 223 does not apply to cases falling under section 171 whereas two other learned Judges have come to the conclusion that if a tenant had made a deposit with the Rent Controller to which section 223 applies section 173 cannot be invoked against him
The separate judgments delivered by all the learned Judges who constituted the Special Bench have dealh with the point at great length and each one has subjected the said two provisions to a close analysis and examination
In the present appeal we propose to consider the matter in a broad way and will confine ourselves to some general considerations which flow from the construction of the two relevant provisions and which
in our opinion support the view taken by the majority of the Judges in the Special Bench
Before addressing ourselves to the main point in dispute between the parties it is necessary to refer broadly to the scheme of the Act and its main provisions
The Act was passed in 1956 and superseded the earlier Act XVII of 1950
The Act consists of seven Chapters
I deals with definitions Ch
II contains provisions regarding rent Ch
III coveys suits and proceedings for eviction Ch
IV has reference to deposit of rent Ch
V considers the question of appointment of the Controller and other Officers their powers and functions Ch
VI provides for appeals revision and review and Ch
VII deals with penalties and miscellaneous provisions
Section 2b defines a Controller section 2c defines fair rent section 2d defines a landlord and section 2h defines a tenant
A tenant according to section 2h includes any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or but for a special contract would be payable and also any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy but shall not include any person against whom any decree or order for eviction has been made by a Court of competent jurisdiction
Section 1 AIR 1964 Cal
38 41 provides that a tenant shall subject to the provisions of the Act pay to the landlord a in cases where fair rent has been fixed for any premises such rent b in other cases the rent agreed upon until fair rent is fixed
Section 42 lays down that rent shall be paid within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract by the 15th day of the month next following the month for which it is payable and under section 43 any sum in excess of the rent referred to in sub section
1 shall not be recoverable by the landlord
These provisions are in conformity With the pattern which is usually adopted by Rent Restriction Acts
The rest of the provisions of Chapter II deal with the fixation of standard rent with the said provisions we are not concerned in the present appeal
Chapter III which deals with suits and proceedings for eviction contains section 17 which falls to be considered in the present appeal
Section 13 which affords protection to tenants against eviction lays down that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law no order or decree for the recovery of possession of my premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the grounds specified by clauses a to k
Amongst these clauses it is clause i which deals with a case where the tenant has made default in the payment of rent for two months within a period of twelve months or for two successive periods in cases where rent is not payable monthly
Section 14 imposes a restriction on subletting
Section 15 prohibits a tenant from receiving any sum or consideration for relinquishment of tenancy and section 16 provides that the creation and termination of sub tenancies shall be notified in the manner prescribed by it
That takes us to section 17
Section 171 reads thus  On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 13 the tenant shall subject to the provisions of sub s 2 within one month of me service of the writ of summons on him deposit in Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which itwas last paid for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of eight and one third per cent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable up to the date of deposit and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate Section 172 deals with cases where there is a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant
This provision is not relevant for our purpose
Section 173 provides that if a tenant fails to 39 deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub section
1 or sub section 2 the Court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit
It is under this sub section that the impugned order has been passed
Section 174 lays down If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub section
1 or sub section
2 no decree or order for delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord on the ground of default in payment of rent by the tenant shall be made by the Court but the Court may allow such costs as it may deem fit to the landlord Provide that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this sub section if he has made default in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months
Reading section 171by itself it is clear that when a landlord institutes a suit to recover possession of the rent though it is not described as such by section 171It is thus clear that whatever may be the cause on which the landlord s claim for eviction is based section 171 provides that subject to the provisions of sub section
2 within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him the tenant is required to deposit in Court the amount in the manner prescribed by it
If he fails to comply with the requirements of section 171 section 173 steps in and  enables the landlord to claim that the defence of the tenant against delivery of possession should be struck out
If section 171 and 3 are read by themselves there is no doubt that appellant No 1 has failed to comply with section 171 and so section 173 can be legitimately invoked against him
He however contends that m applying section 173
the Court must take into account not only 40 section 171but also section 223 and his argument is that if he has deposited the amount of rent under section 21 and the deposit is otherwise valid then the deposit itself amounts to payment of rent by him to the landlord and as such no order can be passed against him under section 173 because in law he has not committed a default in the payment of rent at all and it is this contention which makes it necessary to consider the impact of the provisions of section 22 on the application of section 173 against appellant No 1
Let us
therefore read section 22 and attempt to decide what is the effect of section 223 on cases falling under section 171
As we have already pointed out section 22 occurs in Chapter IV which deals with deposit of rent
This Chapter begins with section 21
Section 21 1 provides that where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in section 4
or where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable
the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller in the prescribed manner
Section 212 lays down that the deposi shall be accompanied by an application which should set forth the particulars prescribed by clauses a to d
Section 21 3 requires that the said application shall be accompanied by the prescribed number of copies thereof
Section 214 requires the Controller to send a copy of the application received by him from the tenant to the landlord
Under section 215
the Controller is authorised to allow the landlord to withdraw the rent deposited with him
Section 216 empowers the forfeiture of the deposit to Government subject to the conditions prescribed by clauses a  b of the said sub section
There are three other sub sections to section 21 which are not relevant for our purpose
That takes us to section 22 it reads thus 1 No rent deposited under section 21 shall be considered to have been validly deposited under that section for purposes of clause i of sub section 1 ors
13 unless deposited within fifteen days of the time fixed by the contract in writing for payment of the rent or in the absence of such contract in writing unless deposited within the last day of the month following that for which the rent was payable
2 No such deposit shall be considered to have been validly made for the purpose of the said clause if the tenant wailfully or negligently makes any false statement in his application for depositing the rent unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount deposited before the date of institution of a suit or proceeding for recovery or possession of the premises from the tenant
3 If the rent is deposited within the time mentioned in sub section 1
and does not cease to be a valid deposit for the reason mentioned in sub section 2 the deposit 41 shall constitute payment of rent to the landlord as if the amount deposited has been valid legal tender of rent if tendered to the landlord on the date fixed by the contract for payment or rent when there is such a contract or in the absence of any contract on the fifteenth day of the month next following that for which rent is payable Mr N C Chatterjee for the appellants contends that the effect of section 223 is that the deposit made by appellant No 1 shall beheld to constitute payment by him to the landlord and so there can be no scope four invoking section 173 against him inasmuchthe basis of section 173 in substance is that the tenant whose defence is sought to be struck out has committed a default in the payment of rent
The object of section 171 is to secure the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord and since that object has been satisfied by the deposit duly made by appellant No 1 under section 211 it would be unreasonable to allow section 173 to be invoked against him
It is common ground that the deposit of rent has been made by appellant No 1 in compliance with the provisions of section 21 and that it is not rendered invalid under section 222
In other words Mr NC Chatterjee is entitled to urge his point on the assumption that appellant No 1 has made a valid deposit under section 21 and is entitled to the benefit of section 223
Can a valid deposit made under section 21 be permitted to be pleaded by a tenant when an application is made against him under section 173 that is the question which arises for our decision in the present appeal
The answer to this question necessarily depends upon the determination of the true scope and effect of the provisions contained respectively in section 17 and section 22
As a matter of common sense Mr NC Chatterjee s argument does sound to be prima facie attractive
If in fact appellant No 1 has deposited the rent from month to month it does appear harsh and unreasonable that his defence should be struck out on the ground that he has deposited the rent not in the Court where the suit is pending but with the Controller
When appellant No 1 began to deposit the rent with the Controller he was justified in doing so but on the other hand it is urged against him by Mr P K Chatterjee that as soon as the suit is filed under section 17 and the period prescribed by it has expired it was obligatory on appellant No 1 to pay the amount in Court and stop depositing it with the Rent Controller in other words his failure to pay the amount in Court incurs the penalty prescribed by section 173 notwithstanding the fact that he may have deposited the same amount with the Controller
The requirements of section 171 cannot be said to be satisfied by taking recourse to the provisions of section 223 that in substance is the argument for the respondent
The question thus raised for our decision no doubt lies within a very narrow compass and its answer depends upon a proper construction of sections 17 and 22 but as we have already indicated this narrow 42 question has given rise to a sharp conflict of opinion in the Calcutta High Court
It appears plain that appellant No 1 finds himself in the present difficult position presumably because acting upon the view expressed in some of the judgments of the Calcutta High Court he was advised to deposit the rent with the Controller even after he was sued by the respondent and section 171 began to operate against him
In dealing with this vexed problem it is relevant to remem her that the two competing provisions occur in two different Chapters and apparently cover different fields
Chapter IV deals with the question of deposit of rent in general whereas section 17 in Ch III makes a provision for the payment of the amount mentioned by it in Court after a suit or proceeding has been instituted by the landlord against the tenant
It is common ground that the Rent Controller is not Court within the meaning of section 171
Prima facie
a general provision for the deposit of rent prescribed by section 21 would not apply to special cases dealt with by section 17
The provisions of section 21 and 22 which are general in character would cover cases which are not expressly dealt with by the special provision prescribed by section 17
In other words though a tenant may deposit rent with the Controller under the provisions of sections 21 and 22 as soon as a suit is brought against him by the landlord section 17 which is a special provision comes into operation and it is the provision of this special section that must prevail in cases covered by it that is the first general consideration which cannot be ignored
Section 17 deals with suits or proceedings in which the landlord claims eviction on any of the grounds referred to in section 13 and as we have already noticed section 13 which affords protection to the tenant s eviction permits the landlord to claim eviction only if he can place his claim on one or the other of the clauses a to k that is to say it is only if one or other of the conditions prescribed by the said clauses is proved that the landlord can claim to evict his tenant
Default in the payment of rent is one of these clauses but there are several other clauses referring to different causes of action on which eviction can be claimed by the landlord and it is to all these cases that section 171 applies
It is thus clear that normally when a suit is brought for eviction the tenant would have to comply with the requirements of section 171
It is only where owing to the refusal of the landlord to accept the rent tendered by the tenant or where there is a bona fide doubt as to who is entitled to receive the rent
that the provisions of section 21 empower the tenant to deposit the rent with the Controller
In a11 other cases if the tenant was paying rent to the landlord and is faced with a suit for eviction section 171 will unambiguously apply and the amount of rent will have to be paid in Court as required by it
It is also dear that if a tenant has been depositing the rent validly and properly under section 21 a suit against him under section 131i cannot be filed
Section 131i authorises the landlord to claim eviction of his 43 tenant on the ground that he has made a default in the payment of rent as described by it
But such a default cannot be attributed to a tenant who has been depositing the rent with the Controller properly and validly under section 21
Such a valid payment amounts to payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord under section 223 and so a tenant who has been making these deposits cannot be sued under section 131i
It is true that the complication of the present kind arises where a tenant who has been making a valid deposit under section 21 is sued for ejectment on grounds other than section 131i and section 171 comes into operation against him
In such a case if the special provisions prescribed by section 171 apply to the exclusion of sections 21  22 the fact that a deposit has been made by the tenant can be no answer to the application made by the landlord under section 173 In this connection it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that section 171 is really intended to give a benefit to the tenant who has committed a default in the payment of rent
The first part of section 171 allows such a tenant to pay the defaulted amount of rent together with the prescribed interest in Court within the time prescribed and such a tenant would not be evicted if he continues to deposit the amount in Court during the pendency of the suit as required by the latter part of section 171
In our opinion the scheme of section 171 is a complete scheme by itself and the Legislature has intended that in suits or proceedings to which section 171 applies the payment of rent by the tenant to landlord must be made in the manner prescribed by section 171
Even in cases Where the tenant might have been depositing the rent with the Controller under section 21 he has to comply with section 171 before the period prescribed by section 171 has elapsed
It is significant that the requirement to deposit the amount in Court comes into force within one month of the service of the writ of summons on the tenant
In other wordsappellant No 1 was justified in depositing the rent even after the present suit was filed until one month from the service of the writ of summons of the suit had elapsed
The Legislature has taken the precaution of giving the tenant one month s period after the service of the writ of summons on him before requiring him to deposit the amount in Court
The object obviously appears to be that when a suit or proceeding has commenced between the landlord and the tenant for ejectment and the tenant has received notice of itthe payment of rent should be made in Court to avoid any dispute in that behalf
It is also relevant to remember that in the matter of payment of rent in Court section 171 has provided that the amount to be paid in future shall be paid by the 15th of each succeeding month and that means that the date for the payment of the amount has been statutorily fixed which is distinct from the requirement of section 4
Section 42 provides for the payment of rent within the time fixed 44 by contract but section 171 requires the payment to be made by the 15th of each succeeding month whatever may be the contract
If according to the contract rent was payable quarterly or six monthly or even annually section 171 supersedes that part of the contract and requires the rent to be paid month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month
The position under sections 21  22 is however substantially different on this point
Section 21 I in terms requires the deposit to be made within the time referred to in section 4 and that means where there is a contract made by the parties in relation to the time for the payment of rent it is on the contracted date that the rent has to be deposited under section 21
The scheme of the three clauses of section 22 clearly is integrally connected with section 21
These clauses deal with deposits made under section 21
In fact it would be difficult to read section 223 independently of section 221 and 2 all the three clauses of section 22 must be read together and so the time for making the deposit for the purpose of section 223 would be the time prescribed by contract and not the statutory time provided by section 171
It is clear that the deposit of rent made before the Controller under section 21 is based on the contractual obligation of the tenant to pay the rentand he makes the deposit because the landlord is not receiving the rent or there is a dispute as to who the real landlord is
On the other hand the deposit of rent made in Court under section 171 is the result of a statutory obligation imposed by the said sub section no doubt the amount required to be deposited may be the amount for which the parties may have entered into a contract but the manner and the mode in which the deposit is required to be made in Court are the result of the statutory provision and in that sense they constitute a statutory obligation
That is another feature which distinguishes the deposits covered by sections 21 and 22 from the deposits prescribed by section 171
Mr NC Chatterjee argued that if the majority view of the Calcutta High Court is upheld it may lead to some anomalies
As an illustration he asked us to consider the case of a suit failing under section 171 which ultimately fails and is dismissed
In such a suit the rent would have to be deposited in Court by the tenant as required by section 171 but if the suit fails what happens to the rent Would the tenant be treated as being a defaulter or would the tenant who is required to make a deposit in Court as required by section 171 be compelled as a precaution to make another deposit with the Controller in cases where the landlord had refused to accept rent before he flied the suit We are not impressed by this argument
In our opinion if the tenant had deposited the rent in Court as required by section 171 he could not be treated as a defaulter under any provision of the Act
Payment in Court made by the tenant under the statutory obligation imposed on him would in law be treated as payment of rent made by him to the landlord
45 Mr NC Chatterjee also relies on the fact that section 24 in terms provides that the acceptance of rent in respect of the period of default in payment of rent by the landlord from the tenant shall operate as a waiver of such default when there is no proceeding pending in Court for the recovery of possession of the premises
The argument is that where the Legislature intended to confine the operation of a specified provision to cases where there is no proceeding pending in Court it has expressly so stated
In our opinionthis argument is not well founded
Section 24 merely indicates that the Legislature thought that it was necessary to make that provision in order to avoid any doubt as to whether acceptance of rent would amount to waiver or not in cases where no proceeding was pending in Court
On the other hand from the wording of section 24 it may be permissible to suggest that the Legislature did not think of providing for the consequence of acceptance of rent after the commencement of a proceeding for the recovery of possession
because it knew that the said matter would be covered by section 171
Besides section 222 gives some indication that the provisions of section 22 are not intended to be applied when suits or proceedings have commenced between the landlord and the tenant
It would be noticed that section 222 says that No deposit shall be considered to have been validly made for the purposes of section 221 if the tenant wailfully or negligently makes any false statement in his application for depositing the amount unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount deposited before the date of institution of a suit or proceeding for recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant
This last clause may suggest that the provisions of all the clauses of section 22 may not be applicable after the suit or proceeding has commenced
As we have already pointed out the question raised for our decision in the present appeal really centers round the determination of the areas covered by section 17 on the one hand and sections 21 and 22 on the other and though it may be conceded that the words used in the respective sections are not quite clear on the whole the scheme evidenced by them indicates that the Legislature wanted section 171 to control the relationship between the landlord and the tenant as prescribed by it once a suit or proceeding for ejectment was instituted and a period of one month from the service of the writ of summons on the defendant had expired
We have carefully considered the reasons given by the two
learned Judges who delivered the minority judgments in the Siddheswar Paul s1 case but we have come to the conclusion that the majority view on the whole correctly represents the true scope and effect of section 17 as distinguished from sections 21 and 22
In the result the appeal fails and must be dismissed
There would be no order as to costs
1AIR LBD2SCI 5 46 Before parting with this appeal however we would like to add that appellant No 1 has to submit to the penalty prescribed by section 173 apparently because
acting upon the opinion expressed by some of the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court he was advised to continue to deposit the rent with the Controller even after the present suit was filed against him
We do not know whether there are many other cases of the same type
In case there are several other cases of this type that would really mean unjust hardship against tenants who in substance have not committed default in the matter of payment of rent and yet would be exposed to the risk of ejectment by virtue of the application of section 173
In our opinion such tenants undoubtedly deserve to be protected against ejectment
We trust the Legislature will consider this matter and devise some means of giving appropriate relief to this class of tenants
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant and respondent were the tenant and owner respectively of premises to which the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 applied
The respondent filed a suit under section 13 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant on various grounds
The appellant denied the allegations and contested the suit
Before the suit was filed the appellant was depositing the rent for the premises with the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Act because the respondent was not prepared to accept the rent
The appellant continued to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller even after the suit was filed and the summons was served
Alleging that as soon as the suit was filed and a period of one month from the date of service of the summons on the appellant had expired it was obligatory on the appellant under section 171 to pay the amount in court and not with the Rent Controller the respondent filed an application for striking out the defence of the appellant in the suit
The application was allowed by the trial court
The appellant s revision petition to the High Court was dismissed following the decision of a Special Bench of the High Court in Siddheswar Paul vs Prakash Chandra Dutta AIR 1964 Cal 105
In the appeal to this Court it was contended that the majority view in Siddheswar Paul s case that section 223 does not apply to cases falling under section 171 was wrong because the deposit made by the appellant under section 21 with the Rent Controller constituted payment of rent by him to the landlord
under section 223 and therefore there was no scope for invoking section 173 against the appellant inasmuch as the basis of section 173 was that the tenant whose defence was sought to be struck out had committed a default in the payment of rent
HELD Section 171 is a complete scheme by itself and the legislature has intended that in suits or proceedings to which the section applies the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord must be made in the manner prescribed by the section
The legislature wanted the section to control the relationship between the landlord and the tenant as prescribed by it
once a suit or proceeding for ejectment was instituted and a period of one month from the date of service of the writ or summons on the defendant had expired
Even in cases where the tenant might have been depositing the rent with the Controller under section 21 he has to comply with section 171 before the period prescribed by the section had elapsed because as soon as a suit is filed against the tenant by the landlord for eviction section 17 which is a special provision comes into operation and it is the provisions of that special section that must prevail in cases governed by it
The object is
when a suit or proceeding has commenced between the landlord and the tenant for ejectment and the tenant had received notice of it the payment of rent should be made in court to avoid any disputes in that behalf
The majority view in Siddheswar Paul s case correctly represents the true scope and effect of section 17
as distinguished from sections 21 and 22
42E 431 F 45G H 35 Therefore even the valid deposit made under section 21 could not be permitted to be pleaded by the tenant when the application was made against him under section 173