Judgment J.C. Mishra, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 20th May, 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge (E.C. Act), Dehradun striking off the defence of the defendant-revisionist for non compliance of Order 15, Rules, C.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the par ties and perused the record. The learned Judge allowed the application striking off defence firstly on the ground that any deposit under Section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 could not be considered as valid deposit for the purposes of suit. In my opinion, this conclusion is not relevant for considering whether there is non compliance of Order 15, Rule 5 or not. The defendant is required to deposit only arrears of rent, which were admitted by him to be due with interest thereon. In case the defendant claims that he had already made deposits and under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Court is not empowered to deter mine its correctness or the legality for purposes of Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C. The contention of the defendant has to be accepted at that stage. 3. The learned Judge has observed that the defendant had deposited rent after seeking repeated adjournments. He has, however, not determined "the first date of hearing". He found that first deposit was insufficient. The learned Judge held that the first deposit was made some time after 5-11-97. This observation has been seriously disputed by the revisionist. It has been stated in the affidavit that the revisionist had deposited Rs. 3,600/- on 19th March, 1997. This assertion which has been made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit has not been disputed by filing counter-affidavit. The revisionist has reiterated this stand in affidavit dated 5-11-98. 4. If the deposit was made in March, 1997 only rent up to February, 1997 had become due by that time. Therefore, the revisionist was required to deposit rent from 1st October, 1996 of February, 1997 i.e., 5 months rent which according to the defendant was at the rate of Rs. 3007- per month. Thus, on that date the defendant was required to deposit Rs. 1500/- interest thereon. The defendant deposited Rs. 3600/-, which was more than the admitted rent due. The finding that the deposit was deficient by Rs. 300/- does not appear to be correct. The impugned order as passed on 20th May, 1998. 3007- per month. Thus, on that date the defendant was required to deposit Rs. 1500/- interest thereon. The defendant deposited Rs. 3600/-, which was more than the admitted rent due. The finding that the deposit was deficient by Rs. 300/- does not appear to be correct. The impugned order as passed on 20th May, 1998. fill that date the rent of April, 1998 was to be deposited. The revisionist deposited Rs. 900/- on 13-2-98 and Rs. 1500/-on 14th May, 1998. Thus the revisionist had deposited Rs. 6000/- in the period from 19-3-97 to 14th May, 1998. The rent that was required to be deposited by him during the period from 1st October, 1996 till 30th April, 1998 was Rs. 5700/-interest on Rs. 1500/ -. We have seen that there was no deficiency in the deposit of rent damages till the date of order. We have also seen that the defendant had made advance deposit of rent for the period from March, 1997 to September, 1997 as on date of first deposit on 19-3-97 he was required to deposit the rent that was payable for the period till February, 1997. 5. It is settled view that there is reserve of discretion is striking of defence for non compliance of order XVI, Rule 5, C.P.C. The learned Judge exercised his discretion primarily on the consideration that the deposit under Section 30 of the Act was not valid deposit and there was shortfall in the first deposit made by the defendant. IT needs no repetition that these factors could not be taken into consideration while exercising discretion. 6. The only default that was committed by the defendant was in delayed deposit of rent of Nov. and Dec., 1997 and February and March, 1998. Considering the fact that the defendant had earlier deposited rent in advance the learned Judge should not have exercised his discretion against the defendant. In my opinion, since the deposit made by the defendant was up to date on the date of order it was not a fit case exercising discretion in striking of the defence; more so when earlier advance deposit had been made. The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned judge shall proceed to decide the case without granting un-warranted adjournments in accordance with law. Revision allowed.