Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.5.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge VI, Dhanbad in Title (E) Suit No. 96/2011 whereby, the learned trial Court has passed and order under Section15(1) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the Act for the purpose) for striking off the defence of the petitioner and also for quashing the order dated 12.9.2011 (Annexure-7) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 21.5.2011 has been rejected.

3. Short fact of the case is that a Title Eviction Suit No. 96/2001 was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for eviction of the Petitioner/Defendant. In the said suit an application U/s 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff and the same was allowed by the Additional Munisff IInd, Dhanbad and the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrear of rent @ 150 per month from August 2001 to January 2006 within 15 days and further directed to deposit current rent @ Rs. 150 per month by 15th day of next following month. Against the order passed by the Additional Munsiff IInd, Dhanbad the petitioner preferred a Writ application being W.P. (C) No. 2354/2006 before this Hon’ble Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to deposit the rent from August 2001 till August 2010 @ Rs. 150 per month by 30th September, 2010 and from September onwards, by 15th day of succeeding month, failing which his defence against ejectment shall stand struck off.

The plaintiff respondent filed an application u/s 15(1) of the Act for striking off the defence on the ground that the petitioner has violated the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 2354/2006. The prayer of the plaintiff respondent was allowed in terms of order dated 21-05-2001. Thereafter the petitioner prayed for recalling of the order but the learned court below rejected the prayer vides order dated 12-09-2011.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring Annexure-6 i.e. by referring the Calendar for the year 2010 it is submitted that the Court was closed due to Dipawali holidays from 05th November, 2010 to 17 November 2010 and it was open on 18th November, 2010 and the rent was deposited on the very opening day i.e. on 18.11.2010 and therefore, it cannot be said that there was willful default on the part of the petitioner in making the payment of rent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the definition of the Court prescribed under Section 2(9) of the Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and submitted that the court means the court having jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the purpose of this Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the rent could not be deposited as there was Dipawali Holidays in the court below and on the very opening day, the rent was deposited by the petitioner. However, the Court below has not properly considered this aspect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon Section 4 of the Limitation Act and also section 10 of the General Clauses Act for the purpose of computation of time and submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions, the amount deposited by the petitioner on reopening of the court's holidays and the same is required to be treated as the same is deposited well within time and it cannot be considered as breach of the period in view of the aforesaid two provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below while disposing of the petition has not appreciated this fact though it was raised before the court at the time of making the submission and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the court below has committed an error whil