Judgment S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. The Petitioner is a landlord. He filed a suit for eviction of the opposite party on the ground of default as well as personal necessity, After' filing of the written statement by the defendant-opposite party, the petitioner filed an application under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Act) for a direction to the opposite party to deposit arrears as well as current rent every month in the court. That matter was also contested by the opposite party and the court below after hearing the parties directed the opposite party to deposit the current and arrear rent as required under the law. That order was passed by the learned court below on 13.2.1990. Against the aforesaid order dated 13.2.1990, the opposite party moved this Court in Civil Revision No. 147 of 1990 (R) which was dismissed by this Court. The opposite party, even after the dismissal of that civil revision application, did not deposit the amount as directed by the court below. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the such attitude of the opposite party tenant, filed a petition before the court below with a prayer for striking out the defence of the defendant-opposite party but the same petition has been rejected by the court below by the impugned order dated 2.2.1991 and as such this civil revision application. 2. By order dated 19.3.1991 this Court admitted the civil revision for hearing and notices were issued in compliance of the aforesaid order. By order dated 18.2.1992 the notice on the sole opposite party was held to be validly served. 3. Moreover Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me a xerox copy of the petition along with a xerox copy of the order dated 19.3.1991 which was filed before the court below on 26.4.1991. Mr. Laik submits that before filing of this petition along with the document annexed thereto, a copy was served on the counsel for the opposite party in the court below and in token of the same, he has put his signature on the aforesaid petition on 26.4.1991 itself. 4. Learned counsel has urged that these circumstances will definitely prove that the opposite party, being a tenant, is trying to delay the disposal of the eviction suit and with the said intention has not appeared in this Court. 5. 4. Learned counsel has urged that these circumstances will definitely prove that the opposite party, being a tenant, is trying to delay the disposal of the eviction suit and with the said intention has not appeared in this Court. 5. Whatever may be the reasons, it is a fact which is borne out from the record that notices under registered cover with acknowledgement due was issued to the opposite party on 25.3.1991 and till 17.2.1992 neither acknowledgement receipt nor undelivered cover has been received back in this Court and as a result of which this Court by order dated 18.2.1992 accepted the service on the opposite party as valid under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Coming to the merit of the case, I find from the record that the order under section 15 of the Act was passed on 13.2.1990 against which the opposite party moved this Court in civil revision application which was ultimately dismissed but till 10.7.1990 the opposite party did not inform the court below about the said dismissal of the civil revision and it was the plaintiff-petitioner who filed a certified copy of the order dated 7.5.1990 in Civil Revision No. 147 of 1990 (R) informing the court below that the civil revision application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. From the records of the case, it is apparent that instead of complying with the order of the court below by depositing the said amount, the opposite party always took adjournment on several dates. Ultimately on 6.11.1990 the petitioner filed a petition before the court before the court below with a prayer to strike out the defence of the defendant-opposite party on the ground that the opposite party has deliberately disobeyed the order dated 13.2.1990. 7. Several adjournments were given in the case and ultimately on 2.2.1991 the impugned order has been passed. From the order sheet of the court below which has been annexed to this petition it appears that even on 18.1.1991 the defendant took time for hearing, which was allowed. On 25.1.1991 the case could not be taken up because it was a clearance day. From the order sheet of the court below which has been annexed to this petition it appears that even on 18.1.1991 the defendant took time for hearing, which was allowed. On 25.1.1991 the case could not be taken up because it was a clearance day. On 29.1.1991, when the case was taken up, the defendant-opposite party filed a petition regarding rent and tendered challan of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred) towards rent from the month of December, 1988 to December, 1990 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. On 2.2.1991 when the matter was ultimately heard by the court below, the opposite party probably took the stand that in compliance of the order dated 13.2.1990 he has deposited the said amount in court. The court below rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner by the impugned order merely on the ground that the order has been complied with by the opposite party and, as such, for the interest of justice, the defence should not be struck off. The court below bas taken a view that the time of two months granted by the court below to the opposite party for depositing the amount has elapsed during the pendency of the civil revision application before the High Court and as there was no further specific order for time to deposit the arrears of rent, the opposite party was not in default and it cannot be said that the defendant had not deposited the said amount within time. 8. In my opinion, this finding of the court below is erroneous and against the provision of law. 8. In my opinion, this finding of the court below is erroneous and against the provision of law. Section 15 of the Act contemplates that: "...the landlord may move an application at any stage of the suit for order of the tenant to deprsit rent month by month at a rate at which it was last paid and also subject to the law of limitation, the arrears of rent, if any, and the Court after giving opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make any order for deposit of rent month by month at such rate as may be determined and the arrears of rent, both of before and after the institution of the suit if any and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of 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 off....." 9. From the aforesaid provision it is clear that a tenant against whom an order under section 15 of the Act has been passed is bound to deposit the amount within 15 days from the date of the order. Though it is a fact that against the order dated 13.2.1990 the petitioner moved this Court in Civil revision application but that civil revision application was ultimately dismissed on 7.5.1990. There is nothing on record to show as to when the said civil revision application was filed and whether the order dated 13.2.1990 was stayed by this Court. Even assuming that the said civil revision application was pending before this Court and ultimately on 7.5.1990 it was dismissed, then also the opposite party was required to deposit the amount within 15 days from 7.5.1990. Record shows that instead of complying with the mandatory provision of law the opposite party has deposited the rent by, challan on 29.1.1991, that too after filing of the petition by the petitioner-plaintiff for striking out the defence. Moreover the impugned order does not show that any application was filed by the tenant stating the reasons/cause for delay in depositing the said amount at a belated stage. 10. Moreover the impugned order does not show that any application was filed by the tenant stating the reasons/cause for delay in depositing the said amount at a belated stage. 10. I am conscious of the view expressed by the apex Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and another v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 964: 1985 PLJR (SC) 41) where their Lordships have observed :- "Failure to comply with an earlier direction should not necessarily visit the tenant with the consequence of his defence being struck off because there might be myraid situations in which default may be committed. The Court should adopt such a construction as would not render the court powerless in a situation in which ends of justice demand relief being granted." 11. It is a settled principles of law that the word "shall" used in section 15 is not mandatory; but even then this Court can take into consideration the attitude of a tenant who has tried to disobey the order of the court on frivolous grounds or on no ground. It is true that the court has ample power to extend time for depositing the amount but for that it prayer has to be made. From the order sheet of the case, I am of the opinion that in order to avoid deposit, the opposite party has taken various steps to flout the court's order and, as such equity is not in favour of the opposite party. The very conduct of the opposite party shows that only when a petition for striking out the defence was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, he deposited the challan and tried to show his bonafide. The court below ought to have taken into consideration the very attitude of the opposite party tenant and should have considered the facts in disposing of the petition filed by the petitioner. In my view in such a case, the opposite party is not entiled to get any indulgence from this Court. Further from the order impugned it appears that there was no application filed by the opposite party explaining the delay for such deposit and the court below has proceeded merely on the assumption that as there was no further specific order granting time for such deposit the deposit made by the defendant-opposite party was within time. Further from the order impugned it appears that there was no application filed by the opposite party explaining the delay for such deposit and the court below has proceeded merely on the assumption that as there was no further specific order granting time for such deposit the deposit made by the defendant-opposite party was within time. This approach of the court below in my opinion, is completely erroneous which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 12. In the case of Manmohan Kaur v. Surya Kant Bhagwani: AIR 1989 Supreme Court 291: the Supreme Court has observed :- "Therefore the interest of 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." (Emphasis supplied) 13. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of the highest Court of the land in my view the opposite party having failed to satisfy the Court, for such delay, must visit the rigour of striking out the defence. 14. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed. The order dated 2.2.1991 is set aside and the defence of the opposite party as against ejectment is struck off. There will be no order as to costs. 15. As the case is of 1988, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferebly within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Let the lower court records be sent down to the court concerned forthwith.