JUDGMENT : B.P. Jha, J.–. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. Both these petitions are admitted and are being disposed of at this stage. 3. By this ORDER :, I shall dispose of both the civil revision petitions, namely, Civil Revision No. 1938 of 1986 and Civil Revision No. 1939 of 1986. 4. In Civil Revision No. 1938 of 1986, the defence of the petitioners was struck off, and the court below refused to extend the time under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 5. In Civil Revision No. 1939 of 1986 the court was of opinion that the arrear of rent was not deposited in time. By an ORDER :dated 12th December, 1984, the court directed the defendants-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from January, 1979 to December, 1979 within a fortnight. Actually, the arrear was not deposited within a fortnight. The arrear of rent was deposited on 7th January, 1985. Hence, according to the learned Counsel for the opposite party, there is a delay of five days. 6. According to the facts stated in the impugned ORDER :s, it is clear that there is a seal of the Registrar dated 2nd January, 1985 on the challan. The entry in the relevant register shows that it was filed on 4th January, 1985. The money was deposited on 7th January, 1985. 7. It is stated that 6th of January, 1985 was Sunday. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the challan was passed by the treasury on 5th of January, 1985. The amount ought to have been deposited on or before 2nd January, 1985 which has not been done in the present case. The court below refused to extend the time under section 148 of the Code. 8. On a perusal of the finding, it is clear that two days were taken, namely, 4th and 5th January, 1985, in passing the challan by the Civil Court as well as by the Treasury. 6th of 1anuary, 1985 was Sunday. In this circumstance, the court below ought to have extended the time under section 148 of the Code. 8. On a perusal of the finding, it is clear that two days were taken, namely, 4th and 5th January, 1985, in passing the challan by the Civil Court as well as by the Treasury. 6th of 1anuary, 1985 was Sunday. In this circumstance, the court below ought to have extended the time under section 148 of the Code. If the challan would have been passed both by the Civil Court and the Treasury on 4th January, 1985, the petitioners could have deposited the amount on 4th January, 1985, and, hence, there would have been a delay of only two days. 9. In my opinion, the delay of two days in depositing the arrears of rent is negligible and the court ordinarily ought to have condoned the delay. In my opinion, the court should always condone the delay of a few days in depositing the rent, if a reasonable explanation has been given to this effect. 10. In my opinion, the explanation given by the petitioners, the court should have accepted the same. If the court does not extend the time, then the tenant's case will be prejudiced. Hence, I extend the period up to 7th January, 1985 for depositing the arrears of rent under section 148 of the Code. The ORDER :for striking off the defence is set aside, and the court is directed to dispose of the suit within four months from the date of receipt of the ORDER :of this Court. 11. In the result, the petitions are allowed and the ORDER :s dated 12th August, 1986 and 25th September, 1986 are set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs. Application allowed.