Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The facts in brief are that JSSC Suit No. 59 of 2007 was filed by plaintiff respondent No. 1 for arrears of rent and ejectment from godown No. 2 Eastern side situated near gate No. 2 Anand Niketan Market, Bareilly against the petitioner.

3. The defendant petitioner filed his written statement controverting the allegations made in the plaint. An application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff for striking off the defence against which no objection was filed by the defendant petitioner. The trial Court/Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly vide order dated 10.6.2010 allowed the application directing striking off the defence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.6.2010, the petitioner filed representation, which too was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 30.8.2010, against which revision was filed by the petitioner before the Court of District Judge, Bareilly. The aforesaid revision was also rejected vide order dated 30.9.2010, hence the instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid orders dated 10.6.2010, 30.8.2010 and 20.10.2010 respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed representation on sufficient and valid grounds and has also submitted the tender for depositing the entire amount of rent due as it provided under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. but the Courts below have committed an error of jurisdiction in rejecting the representation of the petitioner as such the order striking off the defence of the petitioner is penal in nature. According to him, the Courts below ought to have condoned the delay by recalling the order of striking off the defence and allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount due.

5. He also submits that the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case he is deprived of his defence in the suit and he will be evicted from the premises in suit straight way. In support of these submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Bimal Chand Jain vesus Sri Gopal Agarwal, Allahabad Civil Journal ( Supreme Court) page-395 and the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Pyare Lal v. District Judge, Lucknow and others, 2010(2) ARC 260.

6. Case of Bimal Chand Jain (supra) was that a suit for ejectment of a lessee and for recovery of arrears of rent was filed. The Court in the facts of that case posed a question as to whether the Court enjoys any discretion not to strike off the defence in case the defendant has defaulted in depositing the rent and has also failed to make any representation within the terms of Rule 5 of Order XV, Code of Civil Procedure

7. The question was answered thus :

“It seems to us on a comprehensive understanding of Rule 5 of Order XV that the true construction of the Rule should be thus. Sub-rule (1) obliges the defendant to deposit at or before the first hearing of the suit, the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and further, whether or not he admits any amount to be due, to deposit regularly throughout the continuation of the suit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual. In the event of any default in making any deposit, “ the Court may subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off his defence.” We shall presently come to what this means. Sub-rule (2) obliges the Court, before making an order for striking off the defence to consider any representation made by the defendant in that behalf. In other words, the defendant has been vested with a statutory right to make a representation to the Court against his defence being struck off. If a representation is made the Court must consider it on its merits, and then decide whether the defence should or should not be struck off. This is a right