JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This revision has been filed against the order of the VII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, dated 23-3-1990 accepting the application moved by the plaintiff-opposite parties for striking off the defence of the defendant under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. on the ground that there has been no compliance of the aforesaid provision after 6-4-1988. 2. At the admission stage the contesting opposite parties put in appearance and have been represented before me by Sri P.K. Jain. Advocate, counsel for both the parties have made a joint statement that the revision itself may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. In these circumstances, the revision is being finally disposed of. 3. The only argument which has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in this case is that the Court below has account with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction while not considering the adjustment of Rs. 45,000 in compliance of the provisions of the Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. The precise argument is that the amount of Rs. 45,000 had been spent by the defendant towards repairs after seeking permission from the plaintiffs and the defendant was entitled to adjustment of the aforesaid amount towards rent and thus he was not liable to deposit any monthly rent after 6-4-1988. Learned Counsel, appearing for the contesting opposite parties, has, however, urged that the defendant has not produced any evidence to show that there was a consent of the plaintiff- landlord for spending the amount of Rs. 45,000 and the plea taken by the defendant was not a bona fide plea and such adjustment cannot be made and contemplated by the Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the opinion that the trial Court should record a finding as to whether the plea taken by the defendant is a bona fide plea and also a finding as to whether there was a consent of the landlord for spending Rs. 45,000 and adjusting the same in the rent which would have become due for the future months. It is only after recording such a finding on aforesaid question that the application under Order XV, Rule 5,C.P.C. be disposed of in accordance with the contract, whether implied or express, arrived at between the parties. 45,000 and adjusting the same in the rent which would have become due for the future months. It is only after recording such a finding on aforesaid question that the application under Order XV, Rule 5,C.P.C. be disposed of in accordance with the contract, whether implied or express, arrived at between the parties. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on merits of the case and the Court below will records its own finding on the basis of the materials filed by the parties before it. 5. For the reasons, stated above, the revision is allowed the order dated 23-3-1990 is set aside and the case is sent back to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, for deciding the application 7/Ga moved by the defendant again preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before the Court below. 6. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges