JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - This is a tenant's revision. It is directed against a decree for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. 2. It appears that for non-compliance of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. the Court struck off the defence of the tenant. The tenant filed a revision in the High Court against the order. During pendency, the tenant died with the result that the revision was dismissed as having abated. Thereafter the Court took up the suit and, relying on plaintiff's evidence, decreed it. 3. In the present revision, the learned counsel has assailed the validity of the order striking off the defence. 4. The order striking off the defence was passed on March 18, 1974. At that time Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. provided that if on or before the first hearing of the suit the tenant does not deposit the amount of rent admitted by him to be due, his defence may be struck off. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Order 15, Rule 5 did not come into play because the stage of the first bearing of the suit had not, in fact, arrived till the date when the defence was actually struck off, namely, March, 18, 1974 The suit was filed on May 16, 1972 and the order sheet shows that on various dates till March, 1974 nothing happened except the filing of the written statement. The case was not taken up by the Court nor did it apply its mind to the case on any of those dates. The case was merely adjourned for one reason or the other. Issues had not been framed till then. 5. In Ladly Prasad v. Shiv Ram Shah Bills, 1976 A.L.J. 494, a Division Bench of this Court explained that the first bearing of the suit within meaning of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. occurs after the defendant has filed his written statement, the parties have been examined under Order 10, if necessary, documents have been filed and necessary issues framed, After the framing of the issues, the case is ready for hearing, This is the stage when Order 15, Rule 5 comes into play. On facts, this stage had not been reached in March, 1974 when the defence was struck off. On facts, this stage had not been reached in March, 1974 when the defence was struck off. The defence could not be struck off for non-deposit of the rent admitted by the tenant to be due if the first date of hearing of the suit had not been reached. The order striking off the defence was wholly without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted that since the order striking off the defence was taken up to this Court in revision and since the revision was dismissed, the order became final even qua this Court. The revision was dismissed not on the merits but for non-substitution of the heirs of the defendant - applicant. The revision was directed to abate. That does not imply any decision on the merits of the matter. It cannot hence be said that the order striking off the defence had become final in so far as this Court was concerned. Section 105 C.P.C. authorises a court of appeal to look into any error, defect or irregularity in any order affecting the decision of the case. The order striking off the defence undoubtedly affected the decision of the case on merits. Hence this Court while acting as the Court of appeal could look into the validity of that order. It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is part of the appellate jurisdiction See Shankar Ram Chandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattairaya Bapae, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1. Hence Section 105 was equally available to this Court while disposing of the revision. 7. In the order dated March 18, 1974, the Court also declined to extend the benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to the defendant-applicant on the ground that he had not deposited the amount due. In the course of the finding on this point, the Court below observed that the amount of costs of the suit of the plaintiff had not been deposited. 8. For the defendant - applicant it has been submitted that the amount of the lawyer's fee came to Rs. 262/-. The defendant had deposited the amount which included Rs. 118.50/- towards the electric charges which he was not liable to deposit. He prayed that this amount be treated towards the lawyer's fee. That was a reasonable request and this amount could be adjusted towards the lawyer's fee, but then it admittedly fell short. 9. 262/-. The defendant had deposited the amount which included Rs. 118.50/- towards the electric charges which he was not liable to deposit. He prayed that this amount be treated towards the lawyer's fee. That was a reasonable request and this amount could be adjusted towards the lawyer's fee, but then it admittedly fell short. 9. Learned counsel then raised a submission that the defendant had deposited Rs. 1,000/- towards the arrears of rent due from April 1, 1972 to July, 1972. The defendant was under Section 39 liable to deposit rent only till the coming into force of the Act, namely, July 15, 1972. Thus, the deposit for the entire month of July, 1972 was excessive. He was entitled to adjustment of half the rent for July 72 towards the costs of the plaintiff. It is difficult to agree to this part of the submission. The Rent Control Act affords a locus paenitentias to the defendant to avoid ejectment on pain of deposit of admitted amount of rent, interest and costs of the plaintiff. The deposit has to be made within one month of the commencement of that Act, namely, up to August 15, 1972 in a case where the suit had been filed before the commencement of that Act (as the case was here). The deposit was, in fact, made on August 2, 1972. On that date liability to pay rent for July 1972 had admittedly accrued. Section 39 of the Act does not require deposit of the arrears of rent only till the date of the commencement of the Act. The provision requires that the admitted amount of rent and arrears should be deposited within one month of the commencement of the Act. So, till August 15, 1972, the tenant who wishes to avoid the decree of ejectment should do so by depositing the arrears of rent. I am, hence, unable to accept that the tenant was liable to deposit the arrears of rent only till July 15, 1972. In this view, it is clear that the defendant - tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. 10. At the final heating of the case, the Court below decided the matter after disposing of the points mentioned by it. In this view, it is clear that the defendant - tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. 10. At the final heating of the case, the Court below decided the matter after disposing of the points mentioned by it. Since the defence of the defendant had been struck off his defence was not considered in the sense that the defendant could not lead evidence in support of the pleas raised by him. The suit vas disposed of merely on the plaintiff's evidence. Since the order striking off the defence has been found to be illegal, the matter has to go back. 10A. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The decree of the court below is set aside and the matter is sent back to it for disposing of the suit afresh and in accordance with law. 11. The record will be sent down to the Court below forthwith.