S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) -HEARD Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Yadav, learned Counsel, who has appeared through caveat for landlord-respondent. ( 2 ) LANDLORD respondent after purchasing the accommodation through the registered sale deed dated 9. 7. 2001 filed suit for eviction against tenant petitioner in the form of S. C. C. Suit No. 266 of 2002, Moin Khan v. Wali Mohd. The only ground of eviction mentioned in the plaint is default. According to the learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner, tenant petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent along with cost etc. on the first date of hearing. The Court is unable to understand that in case entire amount had been deposited on the first date of hearing, why advantage of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not granted to the tenant petitioner and suit was not decided then and there. None of the Counsel is in a position to give satisfactory reply to this query. Thereafter, it appears that there was some delay in depositing the subsequent monthly rent on three or four occasions, hence on the application of the landlord, Trial Court/j. S. C. C, Kanpur Nagar through order dated 7. 5. 2004 struck off the defence of the tenant petitioner under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. Against the said order, tenant petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 52 of 2004, Walli Mohd. v. Moin Khan, which has been dismissed on 16. 4. 2008 by A. D. J. , Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar, hence this writ petition. ( 3 ) AS controversy involved in this writ petition is quite short, hence on the suggestion of the Court, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent agrees for final arguments against the writ petition without filing counter-affidavit. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) IN case only ground of eviction is default and tenant on the first date of hearing deposits the entire demanded amount along with costs etc. , then question of striking off his defence is only academic. However, the Court is not expressing any opinion regarding exact extent of arrears of rent and as to whether deposit on the first date of hearing was complete or not? , then question of striking off his defence is only academic. However, the Court is not expressing any opinion regarding exact extent of arrears of rent and as to whether deposit on the first date of hearing was complete or not? ( 6 ) THE language of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. is as peremptory as the language of Order VII, Rule 1, C. P. C, according to which written statement is to be positively filed within 90 days from the date of service of summons. However Supreme Court in "kailash v. Nanhku,"2005 (29) AIC 95 (SC)= air 2005 SC 2441 . which was followed in several subsequent authorities by the Supreme Court, has held that in spite of such a peremptory language, still Court has got jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the written statement. Same view may be taken in respect of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. Moreover in "bimal Chand Jain v. Gopal Agarwal,"1982 (18) ALR 495 (SC ). it has been held that provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. are directory. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, in my opinion, it is in the interest of justice, that on payment of very heavy cost, delay in making monthly deposit may be condoned. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Delay in making some monthly deposits is condoned on payment of Rs. 5500/- as cost. The cost shall positively be paid or deposited before the Court below within a month from today failing which, this order shall stand automatically vacated and writ petition shall stand dismissed. ( 9 ) TRIAL Court shall decide the suit very expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Absolutely, no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If Court below is inclined to grant any adjournment on nay ground to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 500/- per adjournment. ( 10 ) OFFICE is directed to supply certified copy of this order to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days. Petition Allowed. .