DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) -THE plaintiff of SCC Suit No. 3 of 1988 has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13th July, 1993 by which the revision was allowed and the order dated 23rd April, 1990 passed by Small Cause Courts allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "c. P. C") as amended in the State of U. P. , was set aside. ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondents is not present even though the list has been revised. ( 3 ) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the aforesaid SCC Suit No. 3 of 1988 had been filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was inter-alia asserted that the plaintiff was the owner and landlord of premises in dispute bearing number 106/262 (2) Sa, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur; that Dr. Dal Chandra, husband of the defendant No. 1 and father of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was the tenant of the premises in dispute; that after the death of Dal Chandra, the defendants became the tenants of the property in dispute; that the defendants did not pay rent to the plaintiff for the period from 1st January, 1987 to 30th September, 1987; that the plaintiff sent a notice dated 10th October, 1987 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for recovery of arrears of rent and for termination of the tenancy, but despite the service of said notice, the tenants did not vacate the premises in dispute and nor did they make payment of the arrears of rent. ( 4 ) THE defendants filed the written statement and in the additional pleas, it was asserted that Ahata No. 106/262 (2) Sa, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur was declared a slum area within the meaning of section 3 of U. P. Slum Area (Clearance and Improvement) Act, 1962 and later on the notice of acquisition was published in the Gazette dated 11th March, 1986 and thereafter the entire Ahata which had been acquired, vested in the Kanpur Development Authority free from all encumbrances and that the defendants also deposited Rs. 500/- by way of down payment to the Kanpur Development Authority towards the price of the plot intended to be transferred to the defendants. It was, therefore, asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to prosecute the suit. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff then filed an application under Order XV, Rule 5 of C. P. C. with a prayer that the defence should be struck off as the defendants had not complied with the conditions stipulated therein. The defendants filed a reply to the said application denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the land was declared a slum area and was acquired by the State of U. P. They, therefore, asserted that there was no question of depositing any amount under Order XV, Rule 5 of C. P. C. ( 6 ) THIS application was allowed by the Small Cause Courts holding that though the defendants had admitted that after the death of Dal Chandra, they had become the tenants of the disputed premises, and though the disputed property was purchased by the plaintiff by the registered sale-deed dated 6th April, 1979 but the defendants have not stated as to whom and upto what period the rent was paid by them. It has also been observed that mere payment of Rs. 500/- to the Kanpur Development Authority on 22. 5. 1987 would not exonerate the defendants from the liability of depositing the amount under Order XV, Rule 5 of C. P. C. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved, the defendants filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. This revision was allowed by the judgment and order dated 13th July, 1993 since according to the Revisional Court, the defendants were not required to deposit the amount under Order XV, Rule 5 of C. P. C. as they had not admitted that any amount was due to them. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the proceedings, which had been initiated under the provision of U. P. Slum Area (Clearance and Improvement) Act were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 3116 of 1983, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 6. 7. 1989. 7. 1989. He further submitted that in such circumstances, the denial of the payment of rent was not bonafide and in any event the defendants did not deposit the monthly rent due under Order XV, Rule 5 of C. P. C. which was required to be deposited by them irrespective of the fact whether they admitted or did not admit any amount to be due. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV, Rule 5 of C. P. C. as amended in the State of U. P. deserves to be allowed. ( 9 ) I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the materials available on record. ( 10 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition it would be necessary to place the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. as applicable to the State of U. P. The same are as follows:-Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent, etc.- (1) In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of any default in making the deposit of the entire amount admitted by him to be due or the monthly amount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), strike off his defence. Explanation 1.-The expression "first hearing" means the date for filing written statement for hearing mentioned in the summons or where more than one of such dates are mentioned, the last of the dates mentioned. Explanation 1.-The expression "first hearing" means the date for filing written statement for hearing mentioned in the summons or where more than one of such dates are mentioned, the last of the dates mentioned. Explanation 2.-The expression "entire amount admitted by him to be due" means the entire gross amount, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation, calculated at the admitted rate of rent for the admitted period of arrears after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lessors account and the amount, if any, paid to the lessor acknowledged by the lessor in writing signed by him and the amount, if any, deposited in any Court under section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Explanation 3.- (1) The expression "monthly amount due" means the amount due every month, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent, after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority, in respect of the building on lessors account. (2) Before making an order for striking off defence, the Court may consider any representation made by the defendant in that behalf provided such representation is made within 10 days of the first hearing or, of the expiry of the week referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be. (3) The amount deposited under this rule may at any time be withdrawn by the plaintiff: provided that such withdrawal shall not have the effect of prejudicing any claim by the plaintiff disputing the correctness of the amount deposited: provided further that if the amount deposited includes any sums claimed by the depositor to be deductible on any account, the Court may require the plaintiff to furnish the security for such sum before he is allowed to withdraw the same. " ( 11 ) ON a careful analysis of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. it is seen that it is divided in two parts. The first part deals with the deposit of the "entire amount admitted by him to be due" together with interest at or before the first hearing of the suit. " ( 11 ) ON a careful analysis of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. it is seen that it is divided in two parts. The first part deals with the deposit of the "entire amount admitted by him to be due" together with interest at or before the first hearing of the suit. The second part deals with the deposit of "monthly amount due" which has to be made throughout the continuation of the suit. ( 12 ) IT is, therefore, clear that Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. is in two parts. The first part deals with the deposit of the "amount admitted by him to be due" while the second part deals with the "monthly amount due" whether or not the tenant admits any amount to be due. Thus, in a case where the defendant denies the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, he may not be required to deposit the amount admitted to be due at or before the first hearing of the suit but he would still be required to deposit the "monthly amount due" within a week from the date of its accrual throughout the continuation of the suit because such deposit has to be made whether or not he admits any amount to be due. ( 13 ) IN the present case the defendants have admitted that Dal Chandra was the tenant of the premises in dispute and after his death they became the joint tenants of the premises in dispute. They have denied the title of the landlord and consequently the landlord-tenant relationship only on the assertion that proceedings under the provisions of U. P. Slum Area (Clearance and Improvement) Act, 1962 had been initiated in respect of the property in dispute and ultimately the land was acquired and vested in the Kanpur Development Authority free from all encumbrances. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has placed a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3116 of 1983 wherein the petition was allowed and the proceedings under the provisions of U. P. Slum Area (Clearance and Improvement) Act were dropped. ( 14 ) THUS, the contention of the defendant that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) THUS, the contention of the defendant that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be accepted. The defendant was, therefore, required to make the deposit contemplated under the first part of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. at or before the first date of hearing of the suit. ( 15 ) EVEN otherwise, the defendant was required to deposit the "monthly amount due" throughout the continuation of the suit as contemplated under the second part of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. though he may have denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties because under the second part of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. the deposit has to be made whether the defendant admits or does not admit any amount to be due. ( 16 ) THIS is what was observed by this Court in Smt. Kailash Devi v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others,1995 (25) ALR 7. wherein it was observed: "the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in Uttar Pradesh consists of two parts. In the first part the tenant is liable to deposit the entire arrears of rent admittedly due on the date of first hearing alongwith 9% interest thereon. The second part lays down that the deposit has to be made of monthly amount due within a week from the date of accrual through out the continuation of the suit whether or not the defendant admits the amount due. In M/s. Umesh Industries and another v. IXth Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad and others,1994 (24) ALR 160. it was held that the tenant was liable to make deposit of monthly rent in time. He cannot take the plea that he was not liable to deposit the amount as the landlord/plaintiff owed money to him. The legislative intent was clear that the monthly amount has to be deposited month to month whether or not the defendant admit any amount to be due. He may not be liable to pay the rent claimed on the date of first hearing, but as regards monthly rent, he has to deposit whether he admits or not within the time prescribed, under Order XV, Rule 5 of the C. P. C. " ( 17 ) THIS Court in Bal Krishna v. Rama Nand Dixit and another,2001 (43) ALR 542. also observed: "in the instant case, obligation with regard to the deposit of the entire amount admitted to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum, at or before the first hearing of the suit, does not arise inasmuch as the applicant has not admitted any amount to be due. Therefore, the only question which is required to be considered is whether the applicant has incurred penalty of having his defence struck off for noncompliance of the mandate with regard to deposit of the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual regularly during the continuation of the suit. The provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order XV of the Code, unmistakably, enjoin upon the defendant in a suit by a lessor for his eviction to regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual throughout continuation of the suit. In the event of default, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order XV of the Code, strike off his defence. The opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Anil Kumar Mahajan v. Ashok Kumar and another,1990 (2) ARC 189. is not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XV of the Code inasmuch as the Explanation (3) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order XV of the Code clearly forbids any deduction from "the monthly amount due", except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority, in respect of the building on lessors account. It is rather per incuriam, and cannot lend support to the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant. " ( 18 ) IN Ram Kumar Singh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others,2003 (51) ALR 28. this Court also observed :- "i have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself unable to accept the same. As noted above, the second part of Order XV, Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that whether or not the defendant admits any amount to be due, he must regularly deposit throughout the continuance of the suit the monthly amount due within a period of one week from the date of its accrual. As noted above, the second part of Order XV, Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that whether or not the defendant admits any amount to be due, he must regularly deposit throughout the continuance of the suit the monthly amount due within a period of one week from the date of its accrual. Therefore, this provisions shows that the defendant must deposit the monthly amount due regularly throughout the continuance of the suit. Such monthly deposit is required to be made within a week from the date of its accrual. It is, thus, evident that the defendant is bound to ensure compliance of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure throughout the continuance of the suit. In the event of any default by the defendant in compliance with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defence of the defendant may be struck off by the Court as the monthly deposit is required to be made throughout the continuance of the suit. Thus, the petitioner, in any case, did not make any monthly deposit after May, 1993 as per the requirements of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the defence of the petitioner was rightly struck off by the said order dated 13. 7. 2001. " ( 19 ) THIS decision was subsequently followed by this Court in Kailash Shukla v. Additional District Judge, and others,2004 (55) ALR 305. ( 20 ) IN the present case it is an admitted fact that even the second part of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. was not complied with by the defendant. ( 21 ) AS noticed hereinabove, the tenant has to comply with the requirements of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. and make the deposits strictly in accordance with the procedure contained therein. The mandatory requirements of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. were not complied with by the tenant and, therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff-landlord under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. was liable to be allowed. The Revisional Court fell in error in rejecting the said application. ( 22 ) THE writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The Revisional Court fell in error in rejecting the said application. ( 22 ) THE writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 13th July, 1993 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside and the application filed by the landlord under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. is allowed. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time, it is directed that the Small Cause Coup. shall decide the suit expeditiously. Petition Allowed. .