JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This is a defendant's revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgments of the Second Additional District Judge passed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and that of the Judge, Small Causes Courts, Varanasi dated 12-7-1973. 2. It appears that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the applicant on two grounds. These grounds were that the defendant-applicant had not paid the rent within a period of one month of receipt of notice of demand and, therefore, she was a defaulter and that as the defendant-applicant had sub-let the premises to the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5, she was guilty of having sub-let the premises without the consent of the landlord. The suit was contested by the applicants. She filed a written statement disputing that she was a defaulter. She asserted that the rent was taken by her to the opposite party but that was not accepted. Hence she could not be treated as the defaulter. She also denied that she had sub let the premises or any portion thereof to the opposite parties 2 to 5. 3. The suit was filed on 6th August, 1968. It however, appears that it was pending on the 15th July, 1972 when the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force. As a result of the enforcement of Act No. 19 of 72 the suit stood transferred to Court of the Judge, Small Causes on 18th December, 1972. The case was thereafter adjourned and was taken up on 12th July, 1973. On that date the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court that as the defendant- applicant had not complied with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the written statement filed by her was liable to be struck off. The Court accepted the request of the plaintiff and directed for the striking of of the defence on 12th July, 1973. The suit was finally dismissed by the Judge, Small Causes on the same day with the finding that the notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant-applicant had not been given by a person authorised by trustees. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 23-3-1974. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 23-3-1974. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-applicant has come to this Court by means of the present revision. 4. Shri R. N. Singh, counsel appearing for the applicant raised four points before me in support of the revision. The first ground was that Raghubans Sahai, who had signed the notice on behalf of the trustees, had no authority to do so as no such power was given to him under the power of attorney executed by the trustees in his favour. This argument was advanced on behalf of the applicant in the courts below as well. While this was accepted by the trial court, the same did not find favour with the learned District Judge in revision. The learned District Judge found that the Mukhtarnama conferred the power of filing a suit on Raghubans Sahai and that the power of instituting the suit included the power to give notice to quit as well. I have also given my consideration to the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant but find no merit in the same. In agreement with the view taken by the learned District Judge, I also find that the right to institute a suit, which has been specifically conferred on Raghubans Sahai, should be deemed to include the right to give notice to quit. Hence, the first submission has no substance. 5. The second ground urged by him was that all the trustees having not joined in the suit, the same was liable to be rejected on the ground of maintainability. It appears from the judgment of the courts below that Shri Lal Bhadur Shastri was also one of the trustees of the Trust. Shri Shastri had, however died before institution of the suit. The remaining trustees had admittedly filed the suit and, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant has no substance. He, however pointed out that as a new trustee was subsequently appointed during the pendency of the suit in place of Shri Sastri and as he had not been joined in the suit, the plaint filed was liable to be rejected on this ground. The submission made is devoid of substance. He, however pointed out that as a new trustee was subsequently appointed during the pendency of the suit in place of Shri Sastri and as he had not been joined in the suit, the plaint filed was liable to be rejected on this ground. The submission made is devoid of substance. The question of maintainability or the defect in the plaint has to be examined with reference to the date on which a suit is filed. If on the date on which the suit was filed the plaintiff was competent and had been filed by all those persons could do so, it is not possible to hold that the plaint filed could not be given effect to because of the subsequent changes. 6. The third submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the court below committed an error in striking off the defence of the applicant on 12th July, 1973. He invited my attention to written statemhnt filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and urged that under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C., one is required to deposit the admitted rent and as according to the case of defendant No. 1, she had paid the disputed rent to the opposite party the written statement could not be struck off on that basis. I am not satisfied with the ground raised by the learned counsel. All that has been said in the written statement is that the defendant-applicant had gone to the plaintiff-opposite party with the rent but that had not been accepted by him and thereafter the money order sent by her was also refused. Even if it be treated as correct that would not absolve the defendant-applicant of her liability to make the deposit in accordance with Order 15 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code. It may, however, be pointed out that neither was this aspect of the case urged before the learned District Judge in revision nor was that brought to the notice of the Judge, Small Causes. Apart from the above, Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure further requires a person to make deposit regularly the amount of monthly rent throughout the continuance of the suit. The applicant had not complied with this requirement of the above provision. As this was not complied with, the court below was perfectly justified in striking off the defence of the defendant no. The applicant had not complied with this requirement of the above provision. As this was not complied with, the court below was perfectly justified in striking off the defence of the defendant no. 1 on 12th July, 1973. 7. In the result, the revision falls and is dismissed. The applicant is granted three months time to vacate the premises. The stay order is vacated. There will be no order as to the costs.