Judgment S.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 17.9.1998 striking off the defence of the petitioner and the order of the Revisional Court dated 16.3.1999 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order. (2) The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed Suit No. 141 of 1992 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages. The petitioner filed written-statement. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application to strike off the defence of the petitioner with the allegations that the defendant had not deposited the admitted rent within the time. The petitioner submitted a representation along with an affidavit. It was stated that he was depositing the rent in the proceedings Sunder Section 30 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) on the advice of the Counsel. The delay in deposit of the amount was explained. The trial Court found that the rent for the certain period was not deposited in time and struck off the defence of the petitioner or 17.9.1998. The petitioner preferred a revision against this order. It has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.3.1999. I have heard Sri Nimai Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.M. Lal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. (3) The defence can be struck-off by the Court if the tenant fails to deposit admitted rent on the date of the hearing along with interest and further he is liable to deposit rent every month. The Court is, however, not obliged to strike off the defence if the defendant submits a reasonable explanation as to why he could not deposit the amount within time. (4) The explanation given by him was that he was advised to deposit the amount under Section 30 (2) of the Act by his Counsel. The explanation was not accepted by the Courts below and struck off the defence. Learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the petitioner was fully aware that the plaintiff-respondent alone was a landlord but he illegally deposited the amount under Section 30 (2) of the Act and, therefore, he cannot be granted any benefit of such deposit. The Court is not to consider here whether the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 30 (2) of the Act was valid. The Court is not to consider here whether the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 30 (2) of the Act was valid. The submission of the petitioner was that he deposited the amount under the mistaken advice of the Counsel. If the petitioner has committed any mistake on a wrong advice given by the counsel, he cannot be penalised and the defence be struck off. The petitioner had deposited the rent and if he had deposited the amount under Section 30 (2) of the Act, it must be on the basis of the legal advice of the Counsel. (5) Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision Anil Kumar Chaddha vs. Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut, ARC 1995 (1) 34; Mrs. S. Abel vs. The District Judge, AIR 1980 Allahabad 302; Lal Bahadur vs. District Judge, Allahabad, 1981; Allahabad Rent Cases, 367; M/s. Umesh Industries vs. IX Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, AIR 1995 Allahabad 61; S.K. Masood @ zafarv. Wahid Ahmad Ansari, (1997) 2514, in support of his contention that if the admitted amount is not deposited within the period prescribed under Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C. the defence is to be struck off. These decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. (6) The view taken by me is that the petitioner had submitted a reasonable explanation to condone the delay in depositing the amount. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 17.9.1998 and 16.3.1999 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and I respectively are hereby quashed. The written-statement of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration provided the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today deposits a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the trial Court as cost which shall be payable to the plaintiff- respondent. (7) As the suit was filed in the year 1992, the suit shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The case shall not normally be adjourned but if it is to be adjourned, then not for more than three days. Petition allowed.