JUDGMENT Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. The defendant in a suit for eviction from the house property has filed this revision application against the order passed by the trial court striking out his written statement. 2. By an order dated the 28th February, 1970, the Court below directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent for the period February 1969 to January 1970 at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month within fifteen days of the order, and deposit was made in time. Subsequently, by an order passed by the House Controller, the Municipal valuation of the property in question was raised and the rent was fixed by the House Controller at Rs. 99.80 with effect from the 17th March 1969. On the 15th March 1971, the plaintiff filed an application for direction to the defendant for deposit of the balance of the amount, and by an order passed on that very date the Court below directed the defendant to make further deposit at the rate of Rs. 9.80 per month for the period 17th March 1969 to the 28th February 1971 within fifteen days of the order. On the 29th March 1971, the petitioner filed a chalan and mentioned therein clearly that he was making the deposit of the excess rent for the period 17th March 1969 to 28th February 1971 at the rate of Rs. 9-80 per month. The amount mentioned therein was Rs. 224-30. After the chalan was passed, the money was deposited in time. 3. In an appeal from the order of the House Controller filed by the petitioner, the appellate Court set aside the order of the House Controller and restored the rent of the property in question to Rs. 90/- per month. On the 6th January, 1972, the plaintiff filed an application in the Court below praying that the defence must be struck off because the defendant had defaulted in making the deposit of the rent - for the month of October 1970, and for the further reason that the amount which had been deposited on the 29th March 1971 should have been Rs. 230-30, and not Rs. 224-30. 230-30, and not Rs. 224-30. The matter was considered by the Court below and by its order dated the 26th August 1972, the Court below held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendant had dafaulted in matter of making deposit of the rent for the month of October 1970 was not correct. Agreeing with the plaintiff, the Court below held that the money deposited on the 29th March 1971 in pursuance of the order passed on the 15th March 1971 was short by Rs. 5.84. The Court below, therefore, directed striking off the defence. The defendant has preferred the present civil revision application against the last mentioned order. 4. Mr. B. P. Samaiyar appearing for the petitioner has contended that the chalan which was filed on the 29th March 1971 clearly indicated that the amount of Rs. 224-30 was offered incompliance with the order dated the 15th March 1971 passed by the Court below. He has relied upon rule 613 of the Civil Court Rules (Civil) (page 205, Volume I, 1968 Edition), which enjoins upon the Chief Ministerial officer of the Court mentioned in rule 611, the duty of ascertaining that the amount tendered was correct and was due from the person on whose account it was tendered to the person to whom it was stated to be payable, and after correcting the forms of chalan, if necessary, the Chief Ministerial Officer has to sign it and pass the forms on to the Accountant of the Court. In the present case, I find the Officer of the Court passed the chalan with an endorsement Issue at the risk of the defendant'. The Officer clearly failed to perform his duty enjoined by rule 613. This amounted to an error committed on the part of an Officer of the Court. It is true that it was the duty of the petitioner also to calculate the amount properly and correctly, but rule 613 aforesaid has provided for a further check against any error in the matter of the deposit. It is significant to note that in the present case the petitioner had been making all the deposits regularly as required by the orders passed by the Court. A poultry sum of Rs. 5.84 was not deposited by mistake which cannot be described as a deliberate wrong committed by the petitioner. It is significant to note that in the present case the petitioner had been making all the deposits regularly as required by the orders passed by the Court. A poultry sum of Rs. 5.84 was not deposited by mistake which cannot be described as a deliberate wrong committed by the petitioner. The Officer of the Court is guilty of contributory negligence in the performance of his duty, and his was the last act, which could have, if properly performed, corrected by the error. It is firmly established that a party should not be made to suffer on account of any mistake on the part of the Court or its Officer. I think that in the present case, on account of the contributory mistake committed on the part of the Ministerial Officer of the Court, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of this principle and have the order passed by the Court below set aside. The provision of section 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act has been made with the object of ensuring regular payment of the rent by the tenant to the landlord pending the final disposal of an action for eviction. It was never the object of the legislature to give a handle to the landlord to use it for the purpose of taking an undue advantage in the circumstances similar to those in the present case. The provision is penal in nature and must be construed strictly and order striking out the defence should not be liberally passed. 5. In the result, this civil revision application succeeds. The order passed by the Court below is set aside and the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff in the Court below for striking out the defence is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.