Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, for the revisionist and Miss Shalini Goel for the respondent.

2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2017 passed by Additional District Judge (FTC), Court No. 52, Kanpur Nagar by which the defence of the defendant-revisionist has been struck off under Order XV Rule 5 CPC on account of not depositing the monthly amount during the pendency of the suit.

3. It is not in dispute that neither on the first date of hearing nor during the continuance of the suit any deposit has been made by the revisionist who is admittedly a tenant of the accommodation in dispute at the rate of Rs. 2970/- per month.

4. The order striking off defence has been assailed on the ground that according to the defendant a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- had been given by way of advance rent and therefore the same ought to have been adjusted and as there were no admitted dues payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, the defence could not have been struck off.

5. The Court below has observed that so far as the monthly rent was concerned, that had to be deposited whether admitted or not and in so far a