JUDGMENT : H.N. Seth, J. This is a Defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. 2. Plaintiff's case is that he is the landlord of house No. 328 old (580 New) Muthiganj, Allahabad and that the Defendant had been his tenant in a portion thereof on a monthly rent of Rs. 16/-. The Defendant did not pay rent from 1-6-64 onwards. Consequently, a notice of demand was served upon him on 14th October, 1965. The Defendant, instead of paying the rent, sent a wrong reply. As the Plaintiff required the house for his personal use, he moved an application before the authorities under the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act for permission to file a suit for Defendant's ejectment. That permission was granted on 5th September, 1966. The Defendant then filed a revision against the said permission which was rejected on 2nd January 1967. Thereafter, the plaintiff terminated Defendant's tenancy by serving upon him a notice of demand and by requiring him to vacate the premises within 30 days of receipt of notice. The Defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the house in dispute, hence the present suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was filed. 3. The Defendant contested the suit on the allegation that he always tried to pay the rent to the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff failed to accept the same. Consequently, the Defendant deposited the rent for the period 1-6-64 to 31-8-68 u/s 7-C of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. According to him the application for permission to file a suit for his ejectment made u/s 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, was not bona fide and the permission obtained by the Plaintiff was illegal. He also took up a plea that during the suit, proceedings seeking demolition of accommodation in question were initiated u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During those proceedings the Defendant, with the consent of the Plaintiff, made fresh constructions in the house in dispute and subsequently the proceedings u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure were dropped. This according to the Defendant, showed that the permission which had been obtained by the Plaintiff for filing a suit for his ejectment had become infructuous and inoperative. 4. During those proceedings the Defendant, with the consent of the Plaintiff, made fresh constructions in the house in dispute and subsequently the proceedings u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure were dropped. This according to the Defendant, showed that the permission which had been obtained by the Plaintiff for filing a suit for his ejectment had become infructuous and inoperative. 4. The suit which was originally filed in the year 1967 had somewhat chequered history and continued to be pending till the year 1972 when the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 was passed and a new Rule 5 was added to Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure. The newly added Rule 5 reads thus : (5) Striking off defence on non-deposit of admitted rent, etc. In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from any immovable property after the determination of his lease, and for the recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for the use or occupation thereof whether instituted before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, the Defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, (or in the case of a suit instituted before the commencement of the said Act) the first hearing after such commencement, deposit the entire amount of rent, or compensation for use and occupation admitted by him to be due, and thereafter throughout the continuance of the suit, deposit regularly the amount of monthly rent, or compensation for use and occupation, due at the rate admitted by him, and in the event of any default in this regard, the court may unless after considering any representation made by him in that behalf allows him further time on security being furnished for the amount, refuse to entertain any defence or, as the case may be, strike off his defence. Accordingly, on 1st December, 1972, the Plaintiff moved an application stating that as the Defendant neither deposited the entire rent and damages for the use and occupation before the first hearing of the suit after commencement of the 1972 Act nor did, he deposit the admitted rent every month thereafter, his defence should, as provided in Rule 5 quoted above, be struck off. The Defendant vide his application dated 5-12-1972 objected to the prayer made in the aforesaid application stating therein as follows : 2. That the Defendant after refusing to accept the rent claimed in the notice Rs. 432/- by the Plaintiff has already deposited the sum in the court of Munsif West. Allahabad in the Misc. Case u/s 7-C of U.P. Act 3 of 1947. 3. That the Defendant being an old man and has been ailing for a long time and as such he wants one month's time to deposit the rent for which he is prepared to furnish the security.... The trial court, vide its order dated 6th December 1972 held that the Defendant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent and damages as required by the newly added Rule 5 and declined to grant him any further time for furnishing security. In the result it struck off the defence of the Defendant. 5. After striking off the defence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Defendant had remitted the rent after receipt of notice by him, and that the Plaintiff had refused to accept the same. In the circumstances, it could not be said that the Defendant was guilty of committing default in payment of rent as contemplated by U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947. However, since the suit had been filed on the basis of permission obtained from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer the same was maintainable and the Plaintiff was entitled to the decree for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, as claimed by him. 6. Being aggrieved, the Defendant went up in appeal before the lower appellate court which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. 7. The Defendant has now come up in second appeal before this Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that in this case the Defendant had not admitted that any rent was due from him. Accordingly, he was not, as provided in the newly added Rule 5 of Order XV of the Code, required to make any deposit before the first date fixed for hearing in the suit. The trial court acted illegally in striking off his defence. The decree passed after striking off his defence was, therefore, illegal and was liable to be set aside. 8. The trial court acted illegally in striking off his defence. The decree passed after striking off his defence was, therefore, illegal and was liable to be set aside. 8. I am unable to accept this submission. It is true that the newly added Rule 5 does not require the Defendant to deposit the rent which has been claimed by the landlord as due from him. It merely obliges the tenant, to deposit before the first date fixed for hearing of the suit, only that much of rent and damages which he admits to be due from him. In this case, we find that the Defendant did not dispute that he was the tenant of the accommodation in question and that the rent was payable by him. further, he merely claimed that he had deposited the rent due upto 31st August 1966 u/s 7-C of the U.P. Act 3 of 1947. According to him, on receipt of notice of demand, he tendered the rent which was refused to be accepted by the landlord. He did not claim that he either deposited in court or paid any arrears of rent to the landlord thereafter. This clearly shows that the Defendant, without specifying the precise amount, admitted that some rent was due from him. Again the Defendant very clearly mentioned in his application dated 5-12-1972 that he wanted one month's time to deposit the balance of rent for which he was prepared to furnish security. This was a clear admission on his part that rent was due from him and that he wanted one month's time for depositing the same. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that no rent was admitted to be due by the Defendant. It is not disputed that the Defendant did not deposit any amount which, according to him, was due towards the payment of arrears of rent. Once the Defendant admitted that some rent was due from him, but he did not deposit the amount which according to him, was due by the first date fixed in the suit for its hearing, after the coming into force of the 1972 Act, he, in my opinion, failed to comply with the provisions of newly added Rule 5 of Order XV, and his defence becomes liable to be rejected. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the case of Janki Prasad Saxena Vs. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the case of Janki Prasad Saxena Vs. Tara Krishna Chaturvedi, (1975) AWC 415. In that case, the landlord who had filed a suit for the ejectment of his tenant moved an application praying that the defence of the tenant be struck off as he did not deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 224/- as provided in Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The tenant filed an application before the Court seeking permission to deposit the amount mentioned in the application filed by the landlord. The trial court, however, found, that as the Defendant had not deposited the sum of Rs. 224/- within the requisite time, it rejected his application for permission to deposit the sum of Rs. 224/- and made an order striking off his defence. In revision, this Court pointed out that the stand taken by Defendant was that he had already spent lot of money towards the repair of the house in question which, as agreed between the parties was liable to be adjusted in the rent payable by him. If the amount spent by him over the repairs was adjusted no rent would be due from him. In the circumstances, it could not be said that the Defendant admitted that any rent was due from him and his defence could not be struck off under Rule 5 of Order XV. 10. Facts of Janki Prasad Saxena's case (supra) are, however, materially different from the facts of the instant ease. In the case before me, the Defendant did not allege that no rent was due from him or that the parties had agreed that the amount spent by the Defendant over the repairs of the house would be adjustable. Averments made by the Defendant in his application dated 5th December 1972 clearly show that he was praying for time to deposit the balance of rent which, according to him, was due. Merely because, the Defendant did not specify the amount of ant due, it did not mean that he was absolved from making deposit as required by Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court was, therefore, justified in striking off the defence of the Appellant in accordance with the Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. The trial court was, therefore, justified in striking off the defence of the Appellant in accordance with the Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then urged that in this case the Defendant moved an application praying for permission to amend his written statement. In his application for amendment of the written statement, the Defendant stated that he had, with the consent of the landlord, spent a sum of Rs. 3,000/- over reconstruction of the house and that he was entitled to be compensated for it. The application for amendment of the written statement was allowed by the court. It meant that the Defendant did not admit his liability to pay any rent to the landlord and as such no question of making a deposit of admitted rent as required by Order XV Rule 5 could possibily arise. It is significant to note that aforesaid amendment was, as required by Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, not incorporated in the written statement. Moreover, no where in the application for amendment, was it mentioned that there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant that the landlord would either be liable to compensate the tenant for the amount spent by him or to adjust the same in the rent due from him. In the circumstances, the pleadings in this case do not indicate that according to the Defendant no rent was due or payable by him. 12. In the end, learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that the permission obtained by the landlord had become infructous inasmuch as the nature of the property had changed as a result of reconstruction made by him. This, in my opinion, is an argument which seeks to justify the defence which has been ordered to be struck off by the trial court. So long as the order striking off the defence stands, the Appellant cannot be allowed to support his appeal on this ground. 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant did not raise any other argument in support of his appeal. As I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.