Judgment 1. Head both sides. 2. This civil revision application is being disposed of at admission stage with consent. 3. The relevant facts are short and simple. The suit in question was filed by one S.M. Moiuddin, the predecessor of opposite part nos. 1 to 8, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default as also on personal necessity, which however was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement. The opposite party filed an application under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for giving a direction by the court to the petitioner to deposit the rent, arrears as well as current which was allowed by an order dated 8-12-1987. The petitioner claims that be deposit the entire arrears as well as the rent for the month of December, 1987 on 18-12-1987 and that he also deposited rent for the month of January, 1988 on 20th January, 1988, and that he had deposited rent till July, 1988, but due to unprecedented strike of the non gazetted employees which commenced from 6th September, 1988 to 19th November, 1988, rent for the months of August, 1988 to October, 1988 could not be deposited in time but on 21-11-1988 necessary chelans depositing rent for the month of August to October were filed. It has been further averred that the entire ministerial work of the Patna Civil Court was paralised and the presiding officers of the court were giving general dates in the case filed during the strike period and thus there was no willful negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner. 4. It appears that on 20th February, 1989 the plaintiffs opposites party filed an application requesting the court to direct the petitioner to file challans showing deposit of rent and in the event of his failure to prove the deposit to strike out the defence against ecjectment. On 20 March 1989 a petition was again filed on behalf on the plaintiffs that from perusal of the photo-state copy of the challans deposits have not been made been accordance with the order dated 8-12-1987. On 20 March 1989 a petition was again filed on behalf on the plaintiffs that from perusal of the photo-state copy of the challans deposits have not been made been accordance with the order dated 8-12-1987. The aforementioned petitions have been deposed of by the impugned order dated 10-5-1989 striking out the defence of the petitioner against his ejectment after holding that the deposits of rent for the relevant point (August to October 1988) were not in accordance with law and or the order passed by the court on 8-12-1987. Mr. Mahendra Prasad Bharti learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that section 15 of the Act, vests a jurisdiction in the court not to strike out the defence if the delay is properly explained. By relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Man Mohan Kaur v. Surya Kant Bhagwandi he submits that the delay in this case was properly explained by the petitioner and thus his defence has been illegally struck off. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand contends that on the finding recorded by the Court below, the delay was not explained at all the arrears of rent not having been deposited within the time granted, it was the duty of the court to struck out of the defence as held by the Supreme Courts in its decision Mrs. Manju Choudhary v Dulal Kumar Chandra and that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below while passing the impugned order and accordingly this civil revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. Mrs. Manju Choudhary’s case (supra) was considered by the same learned judges, who had decided Manmohan Kaur’s case (supra) sand they held as follow:- “The court must from a proper perspective judge the question whether the delay or failure to deposit the rent in terms of order under section 13 of the Act, has been properly explained and if that delay has been properly explained, then the court has a discretion to excuse the delay but if the delay has not been properly explained that the court has no discretion”. 7. 7. They further re-iterated the same ration in paragraph 8 of their judgment which runs as follows:- “Therefore the interest if justice which is the paramount justification of the administration of justice with the purpose of the Act, compels us to hold that if the delay is explained then there is no delay and the court in such a case cannot strike off the defence. If, on the other hand, the delay is not explained or the explanation is one which is not acceptable to the court, then the court must strike out the defence and there is no discretion”. 8. The facts are apparent in this case :- (i) As per the order dated 8-12-1987 the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days of that order and as also the current monthly rent by 15th of every succeeding month (ii) Rent for the month of August, 1988 was filed on 21-11-1988. (iii) Rents for the months of September, 1988 and October, 1988 were also filed on 21-11-1988 (iv) There was strike in the civil court from 6th September, 1988 to 19th November, 1988 and that the Civil Court started functioning from 21-11-1988. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party through his counter affidavit has brought on the record that the presiding officer of the Civil court or even the Registrar were not on strike and even during the strike period some challans were filed before the Registrar. 10. The moot question is as to whether there was any intentional delay or not. From the facts aforementioned it is clear that the delay was not intentional and thus the court below has erred in not exercising its jurisdiction in not accepting them even assuming that as per his finding the deposits were not legal. 11. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, I hold that the order suffers from vice of jurisdictional errors and is accordingly set aside and I also direct the court below to accept the deposits made under the challans in question. No costs. Application allowed.