The provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. are discretionary and the Courts have power not to strike off defence even in the absence of a representation by tenant, if on the facts and circumstances already existing on record it finds good reasons for doing so.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the tenant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 7. 9. 83 passed by respondent No. 1 in S. C. C. Revision preferred by the landlord against the order of the trial court dated 11. 2. 1981.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of suit filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner for rent and ejectment, the respondent No. 2 moved an application for striking off the defence" of the petitioner for non-compliance of the provisions of Order XV. Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure code. The petitioner filed reply to the said application stating that since he has already deposited the entire rent due upto 31. 3. 81 under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, petitioners application deserved rejection. The trial court rejected the said application of the respondent No. 2 by the order dated 11. 2. 81. Aggrieved by that order, the landlord-respondent No. 2 preferred revision and the same has been allowed by the respondent No. 1 under the impugned order and the petitioners defence has been struck off.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended before this Court that the power to strike off the defence is discretionary and once the discretion had been exercised by the trial court in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in revision should not have interfered. It was further contended by him that as per the finding of the trial court rent upto March. 1981, had been deposited by the petitioner under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, thus not only the entire rent claimed in the suit but also future rent upto March, 1981, stood deposited prior to the moving of applicalion for striking off the defence, therefore, there was neither any justification nor occasion for the revlsional court to have shut down the right of defence of the petitioner. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order contending that the revisional court has correctly reversed the Order of the trial court as there has been default in making deposits as contemplated under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C.

( 4 ) IT is well-settled that the object of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. is merely to ensure that the dues of the landlord are properly secured and he may not lose the rent/mesne profits just for the reason of the suit being contested by the tenant.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act. tenant gets relieved from the decree of eviction by depositing the entire arrears of rent due upto date along with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum together with the plaintiffs costs of the suit, but there was no provision dealing with the cases of those tenants who were not making deposit under Section 20 (4) and yet were being allowed to contest the proceedings without making any payment of rent/mesne profit. Therefore, the State Legislature in its wisdom brought out an amendment in Order XV. Rule 5, C. P. C. by act No. LVII of 1976, which came into effect from 1. 1. 77. The Idea behind introduction of this provision appear to be to secure the landlords right of getting rent regularly even though the litigation may continue.

( 6 ) A bare perusal of the provision of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. shows that it has two branches. The first branch relaies to the striking off the defence where the defendant at or before the first hearing of the suit fails to deposit the entire amount which is admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum. Under this part however the defence is not liable to be struck off where the defendant does not admit the claim of the plaintiff of arrears of rent. However, under the other part, the position is some what different, and therein it is obligatory on the part of the tenant to deposit regularly throughout the continuance of suit the monthly amount within a week from the date of its accrual, whether or not the same is admitted to be due. It is further provided that in the event of def