ORDER S. C. Mathur, J. - This is a tenant's petition directed against the order of striking off his defence under O. XV, R. 5 of the Civil P. C. 2. A suit for ejectment and recovery of damages for use and occupation has been filed by Kunwar Raj Singh Opp. Party 3 against the petitioner. In the plaint of the suit it has been alleged that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and that the tenancy was in respect of a shop without roof. It is further asserted that a notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the petitioner by virtue of which his tenancy in respect of the property in dispute was terminated. , Damages for use and occupation were claimed at the rate of Re. 1/- per day. 3. The above suit is being contested by the petitioner who has already filed his written-statement in the trial Court. In the written-statement the petitioner alleged that the notice of termination of tenancy was invalid but he admitted that he was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. In the result, the petitioner pleaded that the suit for ejectment was liable to be dismissed and that the plaintiff opposite party was not entitled to damages at the rate of Re. 1/- per day. 4. The above suit had been filed on 1st June, 1979. Thereafter the petitioner deposited amounts due up to 31st Aug., 1979 under O. XV, R. 5, Civil P. C. No amount was deposited for the period commencing 1st Sept. 1979 and ending on 31st April 1980 and, therefore, on 2-5-1980 an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff-opp. party for striking off the petitioner's defence under O. XV, R. 5. Civil P. C. On 2nd May, 1980 itself an application was made on behalf of the petitioner for condoning delay in depositing the amounts and requesting for permission to deposit the rent for the period commencing on 1st Sept. 1979 and ending on 31st May, 1980. The total amount that was sought to be deposited was Rs.90/-. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this amount was calculated at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. 1979 and ending on 31st May, 1980. The total amount that was sought to be deposited was Rs.90/-. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this amount was calculated at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The reason for failure to deposit the amount earlier was stated to be the illness of the petitioner's mother. Apart from making a bald statement regarding mother's illness, no evidence appears to have been led on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court to substantiate his pleas that his mother was actually will. In the application, Annexure C-1, also it was not specifically stated as to when the illness started and when it ended. In the circumstances the trial Court did not accept the petitioner's explanation for failure to deposit the amount as and when the same fell due. The trial Court accordingly allowed the application of the landlord opposite-party and struck off the defence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court the petitioner preferred revision before the learned District Judge, Bahraich which came up for hearing before the First Additional District Judge who by his judgment and order dated 30th Oct. 1981 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the two Courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have heard Sri P. B. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Hari Shanker Sahai, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party 3. 5. Sri P. N. Bhatt argued that on the facts appearing from the plaint O. XV R. 5 C. P. C. was not at all attracted. According to the learned counsel, the said provision would be attracted only when a suit is filed for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and of compensation for use and occupation. The learned Counsel argued that in view of the fact that in the present suit rent was not claimed by the landlord-opposite party the provision was not attracted. R. 5 of O. XV Civil P. C. reads as follows : - "5. Striking off defence on non-deposit of admitted rent etc. The learned Counsel argued that in view of the fact that in the present suit rent was not claimed by the landlord-opposite party the provision was not attracted. R. 5 of O. XV Civil P. C. reads as follows : - "5. Striking off defence on non-deposit of admitted rent etc. (1) 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 it allows him further time on security being furnished for the amount, refuse to entrain any defence or, as the case may be, strike off his defence." Under the above provision two conditions have to be satisfied before the rule may be applied. First, the suit must be for eviction of a lessee from immovable property after determination of his lease. This condition is fulfilled in the present case. The second requirement is that the suit must be for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the period of occupation during the continuance of the lease or of compensation for use and occupation thereof. The use of the word "or" between the clause 'rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease" and "of compensation for the use or occupation thereof' indicated that it is not necessary that the suit must be for recovery of rent as well as for compensation. The use of the word "or" between the clause 'rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease" and "of compensation for the use or occupation thereof' indicated that it is not necessary that the suit must be for recovery of rent as well as for compensation. If one of two alternatives is fulfilled along with the first requirement R. 5 of O.XV will be attracted. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel that on the facts pleaded in the plaint O.XV R. 5 was not applicable. 6. The next argument of the learned counsel was that under the above provision a tenant was obliged to deposit only that amount which he admitted to be due, and since in the present case the petitioner did not admit the rate at which damages were claimed by the plaintiff-opposite party he was not obliged to make any deposit. In view of the use of the words "due at the rate admitted by him" in the above clause, it is true that the tenant will be obliged to deposit only at the rate admitted by him. In the present case the petitioner has not admitted the termination of his tenancy and he has also not admitted his liability to pay compensation or damages for use and occupation at the rate of Re.l/- per day. In these circumstances the petitioner was of course not liable to deposit any amount under O.XV R. 5 at the rate of Re.l/- per day. The petitioner himself did not seek permission through Annexure C-l for depositing the amount at the rate of Re.l/-per day. The calculation was made by the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month which he admitted was the agreed rent between the parties. Since the petitioner did not admit that the tenancy had been validly terminated, there was an implicit admission also to the effect that he was liable to pay only at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument of the learned Counsel that the petitioner had not admitted any rate at which amount was to be deposited by him. 7. 10/- per month. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument of the learned Counsel that the petitioner had not admitted any rate at which amount was to be deposited by him. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the admission regarding the rate contemplated under R. 5, was not to be culled out from the conduct of the tenant after the institution of the suit but had to be culled out from the notice issued by the landlord under S. 106 of the T. P. Act and the averments made by him in the plaint. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel. The written-statement filed in the suit and the conduct of the defendant during the course of the trial could also be taken into consideration regarding the rate at which according to him, the amount is due. 8. In the end, it was also submitted by the learned Counsel that the provision contained in R. 5 should be liberally construed in favour of the tenant as the same has been enacted for the benefit of the tenant. I agree that whenever a cause is shown by the tenant for his failure to comply with R. 5 the said cause should be liberally considered but I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel that the provision has been enacted for the benefit of the tenant. In my opinion, the provision has been made to secure the amount which may admittedly be due to the landlord. This provision has obviously been made to meet the situation which landlord had to face prior to the introduction of the provision. Suits for eviction remained pending for several years and the landlord did not get any amount of rent and after the suit was decreed, the tenant either walked out of the premises or was ejected in execution of the decree but the Landlord was not able to realise the rent, as in some cases the recovery' became barred by the law of limitation. 9. It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by moving the application for striking off defence the plaintiff-opposite party actually made an offer of renewal of lease, which was accepted by the petitioner by moving the application seeking permission to deposit the amount. 9. It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by moving the application for striking off defence the plaintiff-opposite party actually made an offer of renewal of lease, which was accepted by the petitioner by moving the application seeking permission to deposit the amount. According to the learned Counsel in view of the acceptance of the plaintiffs offer, the suit for ejectment cannot now proceed. In the present petition I am concerned with the limited question relating to the validity of the order passed under O. XV, R. 5 of the Civil P. C. The pleas that the suit has now become incompetent was not raised by the petitioner either before the train Court or before the revisional Court and the said plea, therefore, cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. It may also be mentioned that no such ground has been raised in the writ petition also. If the petitioner is so advised, he can raise the plea Wore the trial Court. 10. In view of the above, the petition is without merit and is hereby rejected. Stay order if any, shall stand discharged.