JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - Lala Raji Ram, originally opposite party No. 3 in the writ petition who has since been substituted by opposite parties 3/1 Munna and 3/2 Mathura, instituted Reg. Suit No. 12 of 75 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Barabanki for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of rent. The petitioner put in appearance and filed his written statement. On 21378 the petitioner moved an application (C17) to deposit the entire amount of arrears of rent together with interest at the rate of 9% as also the costs of the suit in the trial court. He also appended the tender alongwith the said application. The trial court, however, did not dispose of the application against which Lala Raji Ram (plaintiff) had also filed objections on 27378. On that date Lala Raji Ram moved another application (C21) for striking of the petitioner's defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC on the ground that the petitioner had not made any deposit of rent which had fallen due subsequent to the institution of the suit. A copy of this application is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Unfortunately, these applications remained pending for several dates and were not immediately disposed of by the trial court. The petitioner moved yet another application (C24) on 21278 for permission to deposit the rent due from him. The trial court, however, by its order dated 41278 allowed the application for striking of the defence and observed that since the defence has been struck off, there was no need to decide the application (C17) for permission to deposit the arrears of rent etc. in court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Barabanki on 24379. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner had not deposited the arrears which had accrued due against him since the institution of the suit and that he had not complied with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But then the defence was not required to be struck off mechanically on the petitioner's lapse in depositing the pendente lite rent every month. But then the defence was not required to be struck off mechanically on the petitioner's lapse in depositing the pendente lite rent every month. The matter, no doubt, is within the discretion of the trial court to strike of the defence on that account but in passing that order, the court has to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case and cannot strike of the defence merely on the ground that there was default on the part of the defendant in making the deposit as required by order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the defendant otherwise appears to be keen to deposit the arrears. 4. The trial court should have appreciated that the petitioner in his capacity as defendant in the suit had already filed an application (C17) to make necessary deposits under Section 20(4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 and had also appended a tender along with that application which had to be passed by the court before the deposits could have been made. As observed earlier, the trial court did not dispose of the application and the tender was not passed. The matter lingered on till December, 1978 when the defence was struck off without even then disposing of petitioner's application (C17). The approach of the trial court in first disposing of the application under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not passing any order on the earlier application (C17) was not correct. When the earlier deposit sought to be made under Section 20(4) of the Act was dependent upon the tender being passed by the trial court which had not done it, the defence should not have been struck off on the ground of default in making the deposit for the subsequent period when the petitioner had already filed another application (C24) to deposit the rent for which the time could also have been extended by the trial court. Since the discretion exercised by the trial court as also by the revisional court is not in consonance with the law laid down by this court in Jagannath v. Ram Chandra Srivastava (1981 AWG 623), Sri Chand v. District Judge, Barabanki (1982 ALJ 1438) ; Jawahar Lal v. Ram Chandra (AIR 1981 Alld. 384); Raghunath v. Ist Addl. Since the discretion exercised by the trial court as also by the revisional court is not in consonance with the law laid down by this court in Jagannath v. Ram Chandra Srivastava (1981 AWG 623), Sri Chand v. District Judge, Barabanki (1982 ALJ 1438) ; Jawahar Lal v. Ram Chandra (AIR 1981 Alld. 384); Raghunath v. Ist Addl. District Judge (1983 ARC 124); Sultan Ahmad v. Goverdhan Das (1983 ARC 161) and by the. Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain v. Gopal Agarwal ( AIR 1981 SC 1657 ) the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that he has already made the necessary deposits in this court in pursuance of its order dated 51079. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders by which the defence of the petitioner has been struck off are hereby quashed. The trial court shall now proceed to dispose of petitioner's application (C17) and will also allow him an opportunity to deposit the arrears of rent which have accrued due against him during the pendency of the Suit. It will be open to the petitioner to withdraw the deposits made by him in this court and to make necessary deposits in the trial court in accordance with the orders that may be passed by the trial court on his applications. Since the suit was instituted in the trial court in the year 1975, it shall be disposed of expeditiously. There will be no order as to costs.