Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in SCC Revision No. 16 of 2009 and order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in SCC Suit No. 14 of 2006 whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC. Respondent No. 3, late Mahendra Kumar filed a Suit being SCC Suit No. 14 of 2006 for arrears of rent and ejectement. The petitioner filed his written statement and contested the suit. The plaintiff-respondents moved an application No. 36-C on 18.1.2008 for getting the defence of the petitioner struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC. The petitioner moved an application No. 39-C on 24.1.2008 for condoning the delay in depositing the rent since it was not deliberate. The Respondent No. 2 by the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 allowed the application filed by the respondents and also rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred a SCC Revision No. 16 of 2009. The Revisional Court by order dated 31.1.2012 dismissed the revision. Hence the writ petition. This matter was taken up on 22.3.2012 and a short time was given to the counsel for the parties to seek instructions from their clients if there is any possibility of compromise. Today when the matter was taken up learned counsel for the respondents very fairly stated that in case the rent of the disputed premises is enhanced, he will not oppose the writ petition. To which, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after seeking instructions from his client, stated that the petitioner is ready to deposit rent with effect from April 2012 onwards at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondents has not objected to it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the statement made by the counsel for the parties as indicated hereinabove, without going into the merit of the case, the impugned orders dated 31.1.2012 and 15.9.2009 are quashed. However, it is provided that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 3,000/- per month as rent/ damages w.e.f. April 2012 onwards for use and occupation of the disputed premises by 7th of each succeeding month before the trial court for immediate payment to the respondents landlords. However, it is provided that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 3,000/- per month as rent/ damages w.e.f. April 2012 onwards for use and occupation of the disputed premises by 7th of each succeeding month before the trial court for immediate payment to the respondents landlords. In case of default in compliance of the aforementioned condition, it will be open to the court below to vacate the stay order if operating in favour of the petitioner. It is again made clear that the rate of rent/dowry has been enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- per month with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. _