JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. 1. The petitioner by means of the instant writ petition, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.1.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge. Court No.2, Lucknow, dismissing the S.C.C. Revision No.44 of 2011. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the orders dated 1.3.2011 and 27.5.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2 and Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow in S.C.C. Revision No. 92 of 2010 and S.C.C. Suit No. 121 of 2006. 2. The brief facts give rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed a Suit No. 121 of 2006 in the court of Judge Small Causes, Lucknow for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the opposite parties no.3 to 5. The suit was contested by the opposite parties no.3 to 5 by filing a written statement on 13.2.2007. The petitioner claimed herself as owner and land lady of House No.250/56 situated at Sankata Devi Land, Yahyaganj, Lucknow, in which the opposite parties no.3 to 5 were tenants @ Rs.50/- per month. The case of the petitioner was that the house was initially let out to the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 for residential purposes but after some time they converted the use from residential to commercial. The petitioner claimed the arrears of rent with effect from 9.11.2013 to 4.11.2006 and damages with effect from 8.11.2006 @ Rs. 800/- per month. The opposite parties no.3 to 5 denied the status of the petitioner as owner and land-lady. They stated that they were not in arrears of rent. In the meantime the petitioner had also filed a suit being Regular Suit No. 267 of 2003 in the Civil Court for declaring her as the owner which was decided on 29.9.2008. After the aforesaid judgment the opposite parties no.3 to 5 filed an application on 4.11.2008 under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Act for return of the plaint. However, when the petitioner filed a copy of the judgment before the Small Causes Court, the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 filed an application on 18.9.2009 under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for permission to deposit the rent. However, when the petitioner filed a copy of the judgment before the Small Causes Court, the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 filed an application on 18.9.2009 under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for permission to deposit the rent. This application was opposed by the petitioner and the petitioner also moved an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for striking off the defence of the opposite parties no.3 to 5 on the ground that they have not deposited any rent in the Court. Both the aforesaid applications were rejected by the learned Judge Small Causes, vide order dated 14.9.2010. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the opposite parties no.3 to 5 have denied the petitioner as their land lady and the application moved on behalf of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 was rejected on the ground that the opposite parties no.3 to 5 have already filed their written statement and the statement of one of the witnesses of the petitioner has already been recorded and as such the defence could not be struck off. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of both the applications, preferred SCC Revision No. 92 of 2010 in the court of District Judge, Lucknow which was allowed by the Additional District Judge Court No.2, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 1.3.2011, whereby the order dated 14.9.2010 was set aside and it was directed that both the applications filed under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC be decided fresh. The learned SCC Judge in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court, considered both the applications and by the order dated 27.5.2011, the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC filed by the opposite parties no.3 to 5, was allowed and the application of the petitioner for striking off the defence was rejected. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order permitting the opposite parties no.3 to 5 to deposit the rent in the court of District Judge, Lucknow which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 21.1.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge Court No.2, Lucknow. 4. I have heard Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abdul Samad who has appeared for opposite parties no.3 to 5. 5. 4. I have heard Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abdul Samad who has appeared for opposite parties no.3 to 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the year 2006 and the opposite parties no.3 to 5 had filed their written statement on 13.2.2007. The petitioner also filed the rent receipt issued by herself but the opposite parties no.3 to 5 instead of depositing any rent on the first date of hearing or on the date when the written statement was filed, continued to defend the case on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the premises in question. However, when a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration was decreed and a copy of the judgment was filed in the SCC Suit on 19.11.2008, the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 after about 10 months filed an application for permission to deposit the rent on 7.9.2009. The petitioner filed objection against the aforesaid application and also moved a separate application for striking of the defence of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5. The learned Judge Small Cause dismissed the application filed on behalf of the opposite parties no.3 to 5 but at the same time also dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for striking of the defence. 6. The opposite parties no.3 to 5 filed SCC Revision No. 92 of 2010 which was allowed and the order dated 14.9.2010 was set aside. The leaned Revisional Court remitted the matter back to the court concerned with the direction to pass fresh order on merits. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court this time allowed the application of opposite parties no. 3 to 5 permitting them to deposit the rent but dismissed the application of the petitioner for striking of the defence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in SCC Suit, question of title is not relevant. Any person who is a land lord of the tenanted premises may institute a suit against the tenant under for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. The opposite parties no. 3 to 5 wrongly raised the question of title of the petitioner and both the courts below erroneously held that after the declaration of the title for the petitioner the opposite parties no. The opposite parties no. 3 to 5 wrongly raised the question of title of the petitioner and both the courts below erroneously held that after the declaration of the title for the petitioner the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 came to know that the petitioner is their owner and as such the belated application for permission to deposit the rent was justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards the provision of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, in which the legislature has used the word lessor instead of owner. This clearly indicates that in any suit filed by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease for recovery of rent, the lessee shall, on or before first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum and whether are not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit 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 and monthly amount as aforesaid, the court may subject to the provision of Sub-section (2) strike of his defence. It is a submission on behalf of the petitioner that Order 15 Rule 5 CPC has two parts; one part requires lessee to deposit the entire amount along with the interest admitted by him to be due on the first date of hearing and the second part requires the lessee to deposit the monthly rent in the court throughout the continuance of suit. He further submits that even if it is presumed that the opposite parties no.3 to 5 did not admit the petitioner as their land lord, they were required to deposit monthly rent throughout the continuation of suit on month to month basis. There was no explanation on behalf of the opposite parties no.3 to 5 as to why they did not comply with the provision of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and did not deposit the rent as required by law. 8. The impugned order dated 27.5.2011 indicates that the learned Judge Small Causes Court has allowed the application in the light of observation made by the revisional court. 8. The impugned order dated 27.5.2011 indicates that the learned Judge Small Causes Court has allowed the application in the light of observation made by the revisional court. So for as the judgment and order passed by the revisional court is concerned, it appears that the revisional court found that the said opposite parties no.3 to 5 were not aware of the fact that the petitioner was their owner and they came to know about the ownership of the petitioner only after the judgment passed in the Regular Suit was placed on record and the opposite parties no.3 to 5 were therefore justified in depositing the rent at a later stage. The learned revisional court has relied upon certain decisions of this Court, in which it has been held that the purpose of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is that the tenant should deposit the rent in the Court during the pendency of the suit so that the land lord may get the regular rent of the tenanted premises. This legal position is not disputed but where it is found that the tenant has deliberately not deposited the rent in the court, the penal provision of striking of the defence should be used. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 has submitted that the title of the petitioner was disputed and she herself had filed a suit for declaration and the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 in their written statement had denied the status of the petitioner as their land lady, they were therefore not obliged to deposit any rent in the court. However, subsequently when they came to know that the suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed, they moved an application for permission to deposit the rent and the same was allowed by the court. He has relied upon a case reported in 1981(3) SCC 486 Bimal Chand Jain Vs. Sri Gopal Agarwal; in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that in every case where the tenant has not deposited the rent in court, the defence should be struck off. The court has to decide whether on material before it the defence should be or should not be struck off. The court is not obliged to strike off the defence in every case of default. The court has to decide whether on material before it the defence should be or should not be struck off. The court is not obliged to strike off the defence in every case of default. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 357 Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh and others Vs. Satpal; in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that power to strike off the defence under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is a discretionary power. 10. The learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 on the basis of the aforesaid pronouncements has submitted that although the opposite parties no.3 to 5 have deposited the rent at a very late stage but the entire rent has been deposited in the court and the provision of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC has been substantially complied with. Under these circumstances, the learned court below was perfectly justified in permitting them to deposit the rent and the judgment passed by the learned revisional court dismissing the revision also does not call for any interference. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned judgment and orders, one thing is clear that both the courts below have proceeded on the assumption that the ownership of the petitioner was disputed. It was only after the decree of the declaratory suit filed by the petitioner that the occasion arose for the opposite parties no.3 to 5 to deposit the rent. The law is otherwise in the matter of a suit for ejectment between the land lord and tenant. The question of ownership is not relevant in such cases. The land lord who files a suit against the tenant, may or may not be the owner of the tenanted premises. The real test is whether the persons seeking ejectment of his tenant is the land lord or not. It appears that both the courts below have mislead with the fact that the ownership of the petitioner was under dispute therefore, the opposite parties no.3 to 5 were not required to deposit the rent in the court because they did not admit her as the owner of the premises. It appears that both the courts below have mislead with the fact that the ownership of the petitioner was under dispute therefore, the opposite parties no.3 to 5 were not required to deposit the rent in the court because they did not admit her as the owner of the premises. It also cannot be ignored that even after filing of the copy of the judgment by the petitioner declaring her as owner, the opposite parties no.3 to 5 waited for 9 months to move application for permission to deposit the rent. The learned court below has also not indicated in the impugned order as to what amount has been deposited by the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 and as to whether the same fulfills the requirement of the provision of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. 13. In view of the above, the orders impugned in this writ petition are liable to be set aside and the matter requires for fresh consideration by the learned Judge Small Causes Court. 14. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.1.2013, passed by the opposite party no.2 as contained in Annexure No.1, the orders dated 1.3.2011 and 27.5.2011, passed by opposite parties no.2 and 1 respectively, as contained in Annexures No. 2 and 3 respectively, are hereby set aside and the learned Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, before whom the case is pending, is directed to consider both the applications moved under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C., by the petitioner as well as by the opposite parties no.3 to 5, again according to law in the light of observations made in this judgment. 15. No order as to costs.