Judgment 1. The petitioner-defendant seeks to challenge an order passed by the trial court striking off his defence in a suit for eviction for not depositing the arrears of rent within the statutory time in compliance with an earlier order passed under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (L.R.&E) Control Act, 1982. 2. The admitted facts are like this. By order dated 11.9.1998 the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs.80/- per month within fifteen days from the date of the order as provided in section 15 of the Act. The petitioner admittedly did not deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days. He, however, made the deposit on 5.11.98. According to him he did not make the deposit as he intended to file a civil revision against the order dated 11.9.1998 but when he met a lawyer practising at the bar of this court, he was advised to make the deposit in any case and accordingly he went and made the deposit on 5.11.98. Eventually no civil revision was filed against the order dated 11.9.1998. The trial court has disbelieved the plea that the failure to make the deposit within fifteen days was on account of the fact that the petitioner intended to file a civil revision before this court. 3. Even if the plea put forward by the petitioner is to be accepted, in the absence of any order staying the operation of the order passed by the trial court, that would not provide the petitioner with a lawful ground for not making the deposit in time. Striking off of the tenants defence is a consequence resulting from the operation of law. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon two decisions; one of the Supreme Court and another of this court in support of his contention that the court should normally take a lenient view and should ordinarily condone any delay in making the deposit. He first cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Sah Keshri & Another V/s. Laxmi Narayan Gupta, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 964 : 1985 PLJR (SC)41. The facts in the case of Ganesh Prasad Sah Keshri were quite different. In that case there was no delay in depositing the arrears of rent but there was some irregularity in the deposit of the future rent for the months of August to October, 1975. The facts in the case of Ganesh Prasad Sah Keshri were quite different. In that case there was no delay in depositing the arrears of rent but there was some irregularity in the deposit of the future rent for the months of August to October, 1975. Earlier that suit was decreed by the trial court ex parte. Later, on a petition filed under Order 9 rule 13, the ex parte decree was recalled and the suit was fixed for hearing. At that stage the plaintiff-landlord pointed out to the trial court regarding the irregularity made in depositing the rent for the months of August to October, 1975. As that period was antecedent to the date of the order, recalling the ex parte decree, the trial court rejected the landlords plea to strike off the defence of the tenant. the High Court in civil revision set aside the order passed by the trial court and held that the tenants defence must be struck off. In those circumstances the Supreme Court set aside the High courts order holding as follows "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 myriad situation 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. The High Court has adopted such a construction which would defeat the beneficient nature of the provision. The decision of the High court will have to be set aside because it proceeds on the basis that once there is default, the tenant must suffer the consequences of it." 5. The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel was by a learned single Judge of this court in M/s. Laxmi Paper House and others V/s. Baikunth Prasad Verma, 1987 P.L.J.R. 874. From the facts of the case it appears that the last date for making the deposit was 2.1.1985. The court noticed that on the challan for depositing money there were the seal of the Registrar dated 2.1.1985 and there was also an entry in the relevant register showing that it was filed on 4.1.1985. The challan was passed by the treasury on 5.1.1985. The next day, 6.1.1985 being a Sunday, the deposit was finally made on 7.1.1985. 6. The court noticed that on the challan for depositing money there were the seal of the Registrar dated 2.1.1985 and there was also an entry in the relevant register showing that it was filed on 4.1.1985. The challan was passed by the treasury on 5.1.1985. The next day, 6.1.1985 being a Sunday, the deposit was finally made on 7.1.1985. 6. It is significant to note that the court found that the challan was actually presented on 2.1.1985 which was the last date for making the deposit and the delay was caused mainly due to the time taken in passing the challan and the next day being Sunday. In those circumstances the delay was condoned and the order striking off the tenants defence was set aside. Both the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are quite different on facts and have no application to the case in hand. 7. Having thus heard counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, I find that it does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction and warrants no interference by this court. This civil revision is accordingly dismissed.