2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had bonafide intention to deposit the arrears of rent as was directed by the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 12.05.2017 passed in J.B.C. Case No. 43/2016. Though the petitioner could not deposit the arrears of rent on the next date fixed i.e., on 24.05.2017 in the court of the respondent no. 4, however, on the next date i.e., on 05.06.2017, he was allowed to deposit the same with the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on 07.06.2017. However, on the said date, the respondent no. 4 did not hold the court and, therefore, the arrears of rent could not be deposited. It is further submitted that the bonafide of the intention of the petitioner to deposit the said amount in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is also evident from the fact that he had already got a demand draft of Rs.1,26,000/- prepared on 01.06.2017 itself (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and if the respondent no. 4 had held the court regularly after 07.06.2017, the petitioner would have certainly deposited the said amount. Since the petitioner could not deposit the said arrears of rent in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 due to compelling circumstance, his defence in the eviction proceeding should not have been struck off by the respondent no. 4.
