JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J 1. This revisional application under 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of a tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against Order No. 64 dated July 20, 1999. Order No. 65 dated July 27, 1999 and Order No. 66 dated August 20, 1999 all passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 5th Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 365 of 1995. 2. In the aforesaid suit, after an application under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ("Act") was disposed of by the learned trial Judge, the opposite party filed an application under section 17(3) of the Act for striking out defence against delivery of possession on the ground of non-compliance of the provision contained in section 17(1) and section 17(2) of the Act. 3. While the application under section 17(3) of the Act was going on, the petitioner contended that it had deducted 20% of the rent at the source as per provision of Income Tax Act through mistake although according to law they are required to deduct at the rate of 15%. In view of such mistake, the petitioner wanted to deposit 5% of excess amount deducted with interest. The learned advocate for the opposite party disputed the aforesaid claim of the defendant and submitted that the plaintiff has already been depositing 20% of the amount of rent as income tax in the Income Tax Department. In view of such conflicting statements made by the parties, both the parties were directed to submit account supported by affidavits within one month from the date of passing of Order No. 64 dated July 20, 1999. By the said order, the learned trial Judge further recorded that the defendant had not yet filed fresh vokalatnama and as such directed the defendant to file vokalatanama within seven days from that date. It was further ordered that if the defendant failed to file such vokalatanama within seven days, its written statement would be struck off. 4. Seven days thereafter, on July 27, 1999, the present petitioner filed an application thereby praying for time to file vokalatnana but the learned trial Judge rejected such application and struck out the written statement for non-compliance of the earlier order. 5. On the next date viz. 4. Seven days thereafter, on July 27, 1999, the present petitioner filed an application thereby praying for time to file vokalatnana but the learned trial Judge rejected such application and struck out the written statement for non-compliance of the earlier order. 5. On the next date viz. August 20, 1999 the defendant filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for depositing the current rent for the month of June, 1996 on the ground stated therein and also filed vokalatnama but the learned trial Judge rejected such application on the ground that as per previous Order No. 65 dated July 27, 1999, the defence of the defendant had already been struck off and as such there was no scope of hearing of the application filed by the defendant. 6. Impugning the aforesaid three orders the tenant/defendant has come up in revision. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in view of the fact that the learned advocate for the defendant was shot dead, the junior of the said learned advocate gave undertaking before the court to file fresh vokalatnama but as the registered office of the petitioner is in Gujrat, the said vokalatnama could not brought within the time fixed by court. Mr. Mukherjee therefore prays for acceptance of the vokalatnama subsequently filed by his client. 8. Mr. Mukherjee further contends that for non-compliance of direction for filing vokalatnama, a written statement filed earlier cannot be struck out. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the court could at best place the matter for ex parte hearing, if the suit was ready for hearing but for non-filing of vokalatnama, written statement could not be struck out 9. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has on the other hand contended that in the past, several opportunities were given to the defendant for filing vokalatnama but the present petitioner deliberately did not file vokalatnama only to delay the hearing of the proceeding. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that a court is vested with inherent power to strike out defence if a defendant failed to comply with the direction given by the court. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this revisional application. 10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, I am at one with Mr. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that a court is vested with inherent power to strike out defence if a defendant failed to comply with the direction given by the court. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this revisional application. 10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, I am at one with Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned advocate for the opposite party that although there is no specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, a court has inherent power to dismiss suit or strike out written statement for deliberate non-compliance of the court's order by a defaulting plaintiff or the defendant respectively. (See Kalipada Das and Ors. vs. Bimal Krishna Sengupta, reported in 1983 (1) SCC 14 ; Dipak Ghosh vs. Rina Mazumdar, reported in 97 CWN 837 (D.B.). 11. But law is equally settled that such power should be exercised in an extreme case where the gravity of non-compliance is such, that a court is left with no other alternative but to take such drastic step. In other' words, the penalty on a failure to comply with the court's order must be commensurate with the gravity of the lapse or omission. [See Mahananda Biswas vs. Radha Gobinda : 1999 (2) CLJ 35]. 12. In the instant case, on July 27, 1999, an application was filed by the petitioner praying for further time to file vokalatnama on the ground that as the Read office of the petitioner was outside the State of West Bengal, the learned advocate could not get back the vokalatnama after execution although the same had been sent. It further appears from record that on the next date fixed, the vokalatnama was filed in court. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the lapse or omission on the part of the petitioner cannot be said to be deliberate justifying striking out defence. 13. I, therefore, set aside the order No. 65 dated July 27, 1999 and order No. 66 dated August 20, 1999 and direct the learned trial Judge to dispose of the pending applications on merit and thereafter to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. 14. The revisional application is therefore allowed subject however to the condition that the petitioner will pay to opposite party 100 Gms. as. costs. Such costs is to be deposited in the trial Court within a fortnight. In default of payment of costs as aforesaid, this revisional application will stand dismissed. 15. 14. The revisional application is therefore allowed subject however to the condition that the petitioner will pay to opposite party 100 Gms. as. costs. Such costs is to be deposited in the trial Court within a fortnight. In default of payment of costs as aforesaid, this revisional application will stand dismissed. 15. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be supplied within 10 days from the date of application. Order set aside.