JUDGMENT : D.G.R. PATNAIK, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the Munsif, Ghatsila in Title Suit No. 5/1996 whereby the defence of the petitioner/defendant was struck off under the provisions of Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 3. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows: A Title Suit No. 5/1996 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking eviction of the petitioner/defendant under the grounds envisaged under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The petitioner had appeared in the suit and had filed his written statement. Thereafter a petition u/s 15 of the Act was filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction upon the respondents for depositing the monthly rent. The trial court, after hearing the parties and considering the matter, passed an order directing the defendant/petitioner to deposit the monthly rent within the period stipulated in the order. Such deposit, according to the established practice, was to be made through Treasury Challan. It further appears that on the ground that the petitioner/defendant had defaulted in depositing the monthly rents, the plaintiff had filed a petition before the Court below seeking an order for striking off the defence of the defendant. The defendant/petitioner was given opportunity to file his rejoinder to the plaintiff's petition. The counsel for both the parties were heard and thereafter by the impugned order, learned trial court had struck off the defence of the defendant/petitioner. 4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial court has not considered the petitioner's prayer for condoning the delay, if any, in depositing the monthly rent. It has also not considered the fact that as per earlier practice, the plaintiff, who lives in Kolkata, used to occasionally visit Jamshedpur to collect rent from the petitioner/defendant and the arrears of rent accumulated for months together, used to be collected in one lump-sum by the landlord. It is further submitted that the learned court below has also not considered the fact that the petitioner being an aged ailing man, could not possibly attend the court regularly in order to ensure the deposits of the rent promptly every month. 5. It is further submitted that the learned court below has also not considered the fact that the petitioner being an aged ailing man, could not possibly attend the court regularly in order to ensure the deposits of the rent promptly every month. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would support the impugned order by contending that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Learned Counsel further contends that the petitioner/defendant has not offered any reasonable explanation before the court below for condoning the delay in depositing the monthly rents. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the impugned order of the court below. The impugned order is quite exhaustive and it explains in detail the facts of the case. The impugned order contains a detailed statement chart indicating the months for which the rents were to be deposited, the dates when the challans were presented before the Treasury Office and the dates when the amount of monthly rents were deposited in Bank. The chart indicates that the rents used to be deposited not within the time stipulated by the initial order passed by the trial court u/s 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Almost on every occasion, there was a delay ranging between one month to nine months. The arrears of the monthly rents for the months June, 2001 to March, 2002, i.e. for a period of nine months, were deposited on one date in March, 2002. It also appears that the petitioner had filed a separate petition for condoning the delay but in absence of a reasonable explanation, the trial court did not exercise its discretion to condone the delay. 7. The Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act is a special Act and Section 15 of the Act lays down a mandatory provision enabling the trial court to pass an order requiring the tenant to deposit the monthly rent within a specified time. Even though the provisions do enable a discretion to the trial court to condone the delay but such discretion cannot be exercised in absence of a reasonable explanation offered by the defaulting tenant for the delay and in this case, as it appears, there has been a consistent delay every month ranging between one month to nine months in depositing the monthly rents. The provisions of Section 15 of the Act cannot possibly be frustrated by the trial court in any unreasonable exercise of its discretion. 8. In the light of the above facts, I am satisfied that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and there is no material to interfere with the same. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there being no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed. The interim order of stay is hereby vacated. However, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial of the suit within a period of three months from the date of this order.