A court has a duty to do justice and should not allow a party to suffer because of a mistake of the court or technical irregularities. Rules of procedure are meant to serve justice, not to hinder it.

Binod Kumar Roy, J.

1. This is a defendants revision against an order by which the trial court had reviewed its earlier order dated 17-6-1985, and had proceeded to struck off his defence under Sec. 15(1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The necessary facts are as follows:-

On an application dated 21-12-1984, under Sec. 15(1) of the Act, filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties, the trial court passed an order dated 2-2-1983 directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent as well as future rent by 15th of every succeeding months. On 21st December, 1984 the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that the rent for the period August and September 1984, have not been deposited. The petitioner filed a rejoinder. The trial court by an order dated 17-6-1985, held that the rent for the months of August and September, 1984, having been deposited on 13-9-1984, there is no substance in the petition dated 21-12-1984 filed by the plaintiffs and it proceeded to reject the same.

3. I am informed at the Bar that the plaintiffs did not move higher against the aforesaid order dated 21-12-1984.

4. It appears that on 2nd September, 1985, a petition was filed by the plaintiffs for seeking review of the order dated 17-6-1985.

5. The petitioners dontested the aforementioned application after putting a rejoinder. By the impugned order the court below has allowed the prayer for review, of the plaintiffs-opposite parties.

6. Mr. A.K. Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petition in question seeking review being filed on 2-9-1985, it was apparently barred by limitation inasmuch as it has not been filed within 30 days of the order dated 17-6-1985. He further submits that the trial court has erred exercising its jurisdiction without condoning the delay occurred in filing the aforementioned review petition. He next submitted that during the relevant period that is to say in August and September 1984, initially there was strike of judicial officers and then of the Non-gazetted employees of the Government, as a result of which, the functioning of the court was hampered. He submitted that before the expiry of the peremptory date i.e. 15th September, 1984, the petitioner took precaution and got the necessary challans passed by the court concerned on 12th September, 1984 itself and then on 13th September, 1984 deposited the rent for the months of August and September, 1984 in the name of the plaintiffs with the State Bank of India. He further submitted that due to strike the challans, other than the one, though which the deposit aforementioned was made could not be obtained and that on the challans themselves, signature of the Treasury Officer were obtained. True photo copies of the. relevant challans have been appended as Annexures 1 and 2 to the revision application. He also submitted with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Miss Santosh Mehtas case, reported in 1980, (3) SCO 610, that while interpreting Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Supreme Court has adopted a liberal view. He submitted with reference to another decision of the Supreme Court, in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesaris case, reported in 1985 (3) Supreme Court cases 53, that the Court has jurisdiction to extend the time once fixed for payment of monthly rent foil due. He further submitted with reference to that very case that failure to comply with an earlier direction should not necessarily visit the tenant with the consequenoe of his defence being struck off, because there might be myriad situation under which default may be committed and that in the instant case situation being beyond the control of the tenant, he had correctly adopted the course after obtaining necessary permission from the court itself and the Treasury Officer to deposit the rent in question with the State Bank