Judgment 1. The petitioner who is defendant first party in an action for ejectment from the premises in suit, has come up to this Court against the order of the learned Munsif, Khagaria striking out his defence against ejectment. The question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether a tenant who deposits the arrears of rent within the time wrongly extended by the Court is liable to suffer the penalty of his defence against ejectment being struck off under the provisions of S. 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. An order under S. 11-A of the Act was passed by the court below on 30-10-76 allowing time to the petitioner till the 15th of Nov. 1976, to deposit the arrears of rent. On that date, i. e. 15th November itself, the petitioner made an application for extension of the period allowed to him to deposit the arrears of rent. In view of a large number of decisions of this Court, the Court below was not empowered to extend the statutory period which was originally allowed by it to the defendant petitioner to make the deposit, but the learned Munsif instead of rejecting the application, granted extension to the petitioner to make the deposit up to the 22nd of Nov. 1976. The petitioner, however, deposited the amount within this period and the deposit was accepted by the trial court. 3. The plaintiff opposite party made an application on the 22nd of Nov. 1976, for striking out of the defence of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner had committed default by not making the deposit within the statutory period, i. e., 15th of Nov. 1976, originally allowed by the trial Court. This petition was ultimately taken up for consideration on the 16th of Dec. 1976, and by that order the learned Munsif struck off the defence of the petitioner against his ejectment. There is no discussion in the impugned order of any matter, much less the effect of granting of the extension to the petitioner. 4. This petition was ultimately taken up for consideration on the 16th of Dec. 1976, and by that order the learned Munsif struck off the defence of the petitioner against his ejectment. There is no discussion in the impugned order of any matter, much less the effect of granting of the extension to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that although the court below might have had no authority in point of law to grant any extension to his client for making the deposit in question, since the extension was granted before the statutory time had elapsed, the petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of the mistake of the court. 5. There seems to be force in this contention inasmuch as had the prayer of the petitioner to grant extension been refused, he might have chosen to deposit the amount on the 15th of November, 1976 itself, as he was still within time on that date. The position might have been different if extension had been prayed for after the expiry of the statutory period. I, therefore, feel persuaded to take the view that although the grant of extension to the petitioner was bad in law, the petitioner should not be made to suffer on the principle already enunciated above. In this view of the matter, the learned Munsif has committed an error of jurisdiction in striking off the defence of the petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. Shri Kamteshwari Prasad appearing on behalf of Shri Indra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party, states that the view that I have taken cannot be questioned. 6. In the result, the application succeeds and the order under revision is set aside. In the circumstances, however, I shall make no order as to costs.