ORDER V.K. Mehrotra, J. - The defendants in a suit for recovery from them of certain amount claimed as arrears of rent for the period between December 1, 1969 and Aug. 31, 1971 in respect of a demised premises together with pendente lite and future interest have filed the present application in revision under S 115 of the Civil P. C. 2. The suit for the purpose aforesaid was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party and came up for trial before tHe II Addl. District Judge, Meerut exercising the powers of a Judge, Small Causes. The plaintiff-opposite party filed an application (59-C) with the prayer that the defence of the present applicants may be struck off, inasmuch as, they had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XV, C.P.C. That rule was introduced in O. XV, C.P.C. by U. P. Civil Law Amendment Act, 1972 (U. P. Act 37 of 1972) which was enforced with . effect from Sept. 20, 1972. The applicant resisted the application aforesaid of the plaintiff, infer alia, on the ground that in a suit for recovery of arrears alone, the provisions of that rule were not applicable. However, the trial Judge was of opinion that even in such a suit, the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XV, C.P.C. were applicable and that, inasmuch as, the defendants had admittedly failed to comply with it, their defence deserved to be struck off. Consequently, by an order dated April 12, 1975, the learned trial Judge struck off the applicants defence and directed the suit to proceed ex parte against them. Aggrieved, the applicants have come up to this court in the present application in revision. 3. Having heard Sri Jagdish Prasad, for the applicants and Sri Vishnu Sahai for the plaintiff-opposite party at some length, I am of opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is plainly untenable and that the striking out of the defence of the applicants by him and the direction for proceeding with the trial of the suit ex parte are wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Rule 5 which was, as mentioned earlier, added to O. XV of the Civil P. C. by U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act 1972 (U. P. Act 37 of 1972), as originally enacted, was as follows: - "(5) Striking off defence on non-deposit of admitted rent, etc. 4. Rule 5 which was, as mentioned earlier, added to O. XV of the Civil P. C. by U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act 1972 (U. P. Act 37 of 1972), as originally enacted, was as follows: - "(5) Striking off defence on non-deposit of admitted rent, etc.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 immoveable 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 defendants 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 event of any default in this regard, the court may unless after considering any representation made by him in that behalf it 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." 5. On a reading of Rule 5 in a natural manner, it would transpire that the basic character of the suit to which the said rule may be said to apply, has to be one for eviction of a lessee by a lessor from any immoveable property after the determination of the lease of the lessee. Such a suit can be coupled with the prayer for a relief for recovery of arrears of rent and/or of damages for use and occupation for the period subsequent to the determination of the lease. A simple suit for recovery of amounts claimed to be in arrears as rent or as damages for use and occupation of the premises demised to the lessee by the lessor is not contemplated to be covered by the said rule. 6. A simple suit for recovery of amounts claimed to be in arrears as rent or as damages for use and occupation of the premises demised to the lessee by the lessor is not contemplated to be covered by the said rule. 6. The conclusion aforesaid is reinforced by the provisions contained in Section 2 of U. P. Act 37 of 1972 by which a proviso was added to Section 15 of Act IX of 1887 (the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act). That proviso runs as under: "Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, or for 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 and occupation thereof, after such determination of lease, the reference in this sub-section to two thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to five thousand rupees." A perusal of the proviso, so added, indicates that where the Legislature intended the provision to apply to a suit simpliciter for recovery from the lessee of rent in respect of a period of occupation thereof during the continuance of lease or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after the determination of lease, it expressly provided for that situation. It is reasonable to expect that in case the Legislature intended that Rule 5 of Order XV of the Civil P. C. added by it by the same amending Act should apply to a simple suit for recovery of arrears of rent or compensation for use and occupation without there being a prayer for relief of eviction of the lessee from the suit premises, it could have used a phraseology similar to the one used by it in the proviso added to Section 15 (3) of Act IX of 1887. 7. Since, as held above, Rule 5 of Order XV C.P.C. will not apply to a suit of the kind out of which the present revision arises, it is clear that the learned trial Judge was in error in striking out the defence of the applicants. The direction to proceed ex parte against the applicants was plainly without jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the application in revision succeeds and is allowed. The direction to proceed ex parte against the applicants was plainly without jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the application in revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned trial Judge striking out the defence of the applicants and his direction to proceed ex parte against them is set aside. The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.