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 as the deposit of advance rent as alleged is concerned, that is a subject-matter of evidence which could be decided in the course of trial but since monthly deposit had not been made, the defence was liable to be struck off.

6. Assailing the order passed by the Court below, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that rent paid in advance can always be adjusted against the deposit required to be made under the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC. In support of the above contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Anil Kumar Mahajan v. Ashok Kumar and others, 1990 (2) ARC 189.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

8. Before proceeding to assess the weight of the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist, it would be useful to examine the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC as applicable in the State of UP. Order XV Rule 5 provides as follows:

“5. Striking of defence for failure to deposit admitted rent, etc. In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of any default in making the deposit of entire amount admitted by him to be due or the monthly amount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), strike off his defence.

Explanation 1. The expression ‘’first hearing’ means the date for filing written statement for hearing mentioned in the summons or where more than one of such dates are mentioned, the last of the dates mentioned.

Explanation 2. The expression ‘’entire amount admitted by him to be due’ means the entire gross amount, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation, calculated at the admitted rate of rent for the admitted period of arrears after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lessor’s account and the amount, if any, paid to the lessor acknowledged by the lessor in writing signed by him and the amount, if any, deposited in any Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Explanation 3. (1) The expression ‘’monthly amount due’ means the amount due every month, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent, after making no other deduction except the taxe