Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;- Heard Sri Rishi Chadha, learned counsel for the revisionists at length. 2. Sri Chadha submits that striking out of the defence of the revisionists is not in conformity with Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), inasmuch as, the revisionists were not required to deposit the rent keeping in view the defence having been set up by the revisionists. He has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 3 of the affidavit disclosing the family pedigree to contend that the revisionists are the coparceners of the property in dispute and in this view of the matter, the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC are not attracted. He further contends that the property was purchased out of the joint nucleus family funds and this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the court below, which has summarily dealt with the issue, hence, the impugned order is vitiated. 3. Sri Chadha further contends that the order is cryptic and it does not proceed to consider the claim on merits in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Sunder Singh Vs. Vivek Sah reported in 1986 (1) ARC 153, paragraph 16. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the decision cited in the impugned order in the case of Pradyuman Jee and Special/Additional District Judge, Ballia and others reported in 2008 (71) ALR 892 to contend that even the said decision protects the interest of the applicants and accordingly, the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC being not applicable striking out of the defence by the court below, is erroneous. 4. Having considered the submissions raised, this is a clear case, where the applicants deny the status of relationship of landlord and tenant and in view of this paragraph 11 of the judgment in the case of Pradyuman Jee (supra) is worth noting which is gainfully reproduced hereinunder: "11. It is, therefore, clear that Order XV, Rule 5 CPC 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. It is, therefore, clear that Order XV, Rule 5 CPC 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." 5. A perusal of the said decision will, therefore, leave no room for doubt that the revisionists have not complied with the second part of Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision. The case of Ram Sunder Singh (supra) as relied upon by the revisionists does not rule after analyzing the provisions as has been done in the case of Pradyuman Jee (supra) and which explicitly lays down the correct position of law. I am, therefore, inclined to follow the same and in view of the aforesaid settled position no material irregularity or illegality could be pointed out so as to warrant exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. 6. In view of this, the revision is dismissed. 7. It shall be open to the revisionists to take any other possible legal plea with regard to the maintainability of the suit or to put in contest before the appropriate forum about the declaration of their rights.