JUDGMENT Madan Mohan Prasad, J. These three applications in revision arise out of a common order directing the petitioners in three different suits to deposit arrears of rent by a certain date under section 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. 2. It appears that the three suits, title suit nos. 84, 85 and 86 of 1969, were filed in the court of the 2nd Munsif of Kisanganj by the opposite parties for eviction of the petitioners, who are said to be tenants in different portions of the same house. During the pendency of the suits applications were filed in all the three suits by the plaintiff-opposite parties for a direction to deposit arrears of rent and to pay rent month by month. The applications aforesaid were allowed by an order dated the 20 May, 1972.The learned Munsif, however, in the last part of the order directed the payment of rent by the 3rd June, 1972. Hence, these applications. 3. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order for deposit of arrears of rent is bad on account of the fact that the learned Munsif has given only 14 days' time for depositing the rent, which is contrary to the provision of section 11 A of the Act. Section 11 A is as follows : "If in a suit for recovery of any building the tenant contests the suit, as regards claim for ejectment, the landlord may make an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any, and the Court, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make an order for deposit of rent at such rate as may be determined month by month and the arrears of rent, if any, and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of the order or the rent at such rate for any month; by the fifteenth day of the next following month, the Court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck out and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment. The landlord may also apply for permission to withdraw the deposited rent without prejudice to his right, claim decree for ejectment and the Court may permit him to do so. The Court may further older recovery of cost of suit and such other compensation as may be determined by it from the tenant." It is quite obvious that the legislature has clearly laid down the period of time during which tenant shall be allowed to deposit arrears of rent and the time so fixed by the legislature is fifteen days. It is not open to a Court, therefore, to reduce the period and thereby violate the provision of the Act. It is quite obvious that Section 11A in this respect is mandatory because non-compliance of the order to pay arrears of rent results in striking off of the defence of the tenant. In the case of Snehesh Mitter and others Vs. Mrs. Neematullah Ehsan Ahmad and others in Civil Revision No. 654 of 1961, disposed of on the 12th March, 1964, (shortly reported in 1964 B.L.J.R, XCV) the learned Judges of t his Court sitting in Division Bench, held that the aforesaid provision is mandatory and further that "the reason is that a time-limit is fixed by the statute itself in the present case and the court cannot have any inherent jurisdiction to extend the time fixed by the statute" If a Court does not have jurisdiction to extend the time, much less can it be said to have jurisdiction to shorten the period prescribed by the legislature. Once a time limit has been fixed there is no jurisdiction, in my view, to a Court either to enlarge it or to shorten it. 4. In the present case it appears from the order that the learned Munsif fixed 3rd June, 1972, for depositing the rent. Obviously it was only the fourteenth day and thus, an order in violation of section 11 A of the Act. 5. In the result, that part of the order, which deals with the direction to deposit arrears of rent, is set aside and the applications are allowed to that extent. 6. The opposite parties being not present at the time of hearing of these applications, there will be no order for costs. Application allowed.