JUDGMENT

K.C. Agrawal, J. - This is a defendants revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the order of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur dated 17-7-1976 striking off the defence under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Suit No. 318 of 1973 was filed by the plaintiff for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation against the defendants. After the service of the notice of the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement denying their liability to ejectment. They also, claimed that the rent payable by them was Rs. 25/- per month.

3. On the pleadings of the parties the Judge small Cause Court framed issues on 14-3-1975. It, however, appears that thereafter some-time in July, 1976, an application was filed by the plaintiffs for striking out the defence on the ground that as the defendants had not paid the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation on 14-3-1975, the defence was liable to be struck off. The application was resisted by the defendants. They claimed that the application of the plaintiffs for striking off the defence was liable to be rejected inasmuch as the entire arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation had been paid by them before. The following details would show the position of payment made by the defendants :

(a) Rent upto 31-12-1973 had been deposited in Misc. Case No. 156 of 1972. under section 7-C of the Old Act ;

(b) A sum of Rs. 750/- towards rent for the period from 1-1-1974 to 31-7-1975 was deposited on 5-9-1975 ;

(c) A sum of Rs. 50/-as rent for August and September, 1975 was deposited on 20-10-1975 ;

(d) A sum of Rs. 100/- as rent for the period from October, 1975 to January, 1976 was deposited on 20-5-76.

(e) A sum of Rs. 125/- as rent for the period from February, 1976 to June, 1976 was deposited on 8-5-1976.

4. Holding that as the defendants had not deposited the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, the Judge Small Cause Court allowed the application of the plaintiffs and struck off the defence. Against the aforesaid order, the present revision was filed.

5. By U P. Act No. 37 of 1972 a new provision was added in the Order 15 of the C.P.C. as rule 5. Rule 5 provided for the striking off the defence, if the admitted rent or damages for use and occupation had not been paid. This rule can be divided into two parts. In the first part the rent due upto the date of the first hearing has to be deposited on that date and that there after the rent of the subsequent period has to be deposited monthly as and when it falis due. The Court has no power to extend the time for depositing the amounts under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. except on a representation of a defendant. There was, however, a further condition that the representation could be accepted only if the same was followed by depositing of security. It is needless to say that in a representation filed for condonation or extension of time, a defendant is liable to make out a case for the said purpose and to satisfy the Court by the grounds on which he could not deposit them within the time prescribed by Order 15 Rule 5 of the C.P.C.

6. In the instant case, now there is no dispute that the entire amount due upto February, 1975 had not been deposited. The defendants admitted that the amount had not been deposited on that date, but the case developed on their behalf was that since on the date on which the application for striking off the defence was considered by the Judge Small Cause Court, the entire amount had been paid up, the written statement was not liable to be rejected or struck off. According to the defendants in order to strike off a defence. under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. the defendant must be found to be in default on the date of passing of the order. According to them where, as is here, the defendant was not found in default having paid up the entire amount, he could not be deprived of his written statement. It is not denied that the expression