Honble SHARMA, J. – In a suit for eviction filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred as `land lord) against the non- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) a compromise decree was passed on Feb 3, 1986. The land lord initiated execution proceedings on November 1, 1993. Before the executing court an application for seeking permission to deposit rent/mesne profit was filed by the tenant. The learned executing court allowed the application vide order dated July 27, 1995. The land lord has now preferred the instant revision impugning the said order of the executing court. (2). Learned counsel for the land lord canvassed that mode of payment of rent had been specifically set out in the compromise decree and when the act was required to be done in a particular manner, it ought to have been done in that matter only. The tenant had obtained concession on agreeing to make regular payment of rent by the end of each month and had agreed to hand over the vacant possession of shop to the land lord on of each month and had agreed to hand over the vacantpossession of shop to the land lord on or before January 31, 2001. Attempt was made to interpret provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC and it was contended that expression `otherwise in clause (c) of Order 21 Rule 1 signifies that in such an event there is no other way of making a payment, it must be paid in accordance with the direction contained in the decree. Reliance was placed on Mahavir Prasad Jain vs. Smt. Indira Devi Jain and Ors. (1) and Ramchandra Keshav Adke vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Ors. (2). (3). On the other hand learned counsel for the tenant supported the judgment impugned and contended that no jurisdiction error was committed by the court below in allowing the tenant to deposit the rent in the court. (4). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions I am of the view that arguments advanced on behalf of the land lord are technical in nature. Indisputably there was a condition in the compromise that the tenant either shall pay the monthly rent/mesne profit on or before the last date of next month and shall obtain its receipt or shall deposit the same in the bank account. Indisputably there was a condition in the compromise that the tenant either shall pay the monthly rent/mesne profit on or before the last date of next month and shall obtain its receipt or shall deposit the same in the bank account. In the event of closure of Bank account the rent shall be paid through money order or shall be deposited in the court. The tenant instead of depositing the rent in the Bank account of Land Lord sought permission of the court to deposit the rent in court itself. (5). At this juncture it is necessary to refer the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 1 CPC which reads as under : ``Modes of paying money under decree - (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely:– (a) by deposit into the court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that court by postal money order or through a bank, or (b) out of court, to the decree holder by postal money order or through a bank or by the other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing, or (c) otherwise, as the court which made the decree, directs. (6). In Sita Ram Goel vs. Sukhnandi Dayal & Anr. (3), it was held by the Apex Court that a judgment debtor is bound to pay the decretal debt in one of the modes specified in the rule. The learned executing court allowed the tenant to deposit the rent in the court i.e. in one of the modes specified in Order 21 Rule 1. Therefore no jurisdictional error was committed by the learned court below in granting the permission to the tenant to deposit the rent. The manner of deposit of rent/mesne profit in compromise decree was against the provisions contained in Rule 1 (a) and (b). Even if I assume that the court directed otherwise to pay the decretal amount and the tenant did not comply the said directions and deposited the rent in the court, in that event also the intention of the tenant shall be looked into. I am not impressed by the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the land lord. I am not impressed by the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the land lord. Such technical interpretation would have been valid in Shylocks case but in the instant case the tenant filed affidavit before the executing court that he offered the rent to the land lord but she refused then he remitted it through money order but she declined to accept money order. No counter affidavit was filed by the land lord herself. Therefore the executing court observed that if the rent was deposited in the court it could not be said that conditions of decree were violated. (7). No doubt that the tenant did not deposit the rent in the Bank account of the land lord but it amounts to irregularity only. Thus, the learned executing court did not commit jurisdictional error in allowing the tenant to deposit the rent in the court and if the said order is allowed to stand no irreparable injury would be caused to the land lord. (8). In the result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.