JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Sri V.D.Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shamshul Islam, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been initiated by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Ballia whereby the application 45-Ga moved by the respondent has been allowed and the defence of the petitioner was struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. 3. Ground of challenge is that the tenant petitioner had never defaulted and has been depositing Rs.15.00 per month from June 1988 when the landlord had refused to receive the rent. The written statement in the instant suit was filed on 13.09.2002. There is no finding of the Court below that the rent deposited under Section 30 was insufficient and there were dues against the petitioner. The submission is that the court below was required to adjust the amount deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, 1972. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Lakhan Lal Sharma Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, passed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2690 of 1981 decided on 20th March, 1985 to submit that when the tenant denies to deposit the amount due against him for any reason whatsoever, in that event he is not liable to deposit the amount under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. Order 15 Rule 5 refers to deposit of the entire amount admitted to the tenant. On the strength of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bimal Chand Jain Vs. Shri Gopal Agarwal reported in 1983 Alld. Rent Cases 262, the submission is that this court may condone the irregularity in payment of rent, if any by the petitioner and the order of striking off the defence of the petitioner cannot be sustained in view of the admitted fact that the rent or the amount due admitted to the tenant was being deposited under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972. 5. Relying upon Mahboob alias Challa Vs. 5. Relying upon Mahboob alias Challa Vs. Mohammad Husain and others 1983 (1) A.R.C. 651 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue of striking off defence is to be decided as a preliminary issue i.e. before the parties are permitted to lead their evidence. Once evidence are led, the defence should not be struck off rather the Court should proceed to decide the matter on merits after consideration of the evidence led by the parties. The instant suit was at the stage of evidence and the defence of the petitioner could not be struck off. 6. Repelling the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the requirement is that after the suit for eviction was instituted under Section 20 of the U.P. Act, 13 of 1972 on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of Sub Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the benefit of Section 20 (4) can only be given to the tenant who at the "first hearing of the suit" unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in the Court the entire amount of rent and damages together with interest of 9% per annum. Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. further contemplates that the entire amount due means the entire rent at the admitted rate of rent after making no other deductions except the taxes has to be deposited before the Court in which the suit is instituted. It is however provided that any deposit already made under Section 30 of the U.P. Act, 13 of 1972 shall be adjusted by the Court. 7. As the petitioner did not deposit the rent in the Small Causes Court, where the suit was instituted, he cannot claim benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, 1972 and the provision of Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C would come into play. 8. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Kanhai and another Vs. Prafull Kumar 2014 (1) ARC 77 : 2014 (2) AWC 1227 . In Kanhai (Supra) this Court placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Haidar Abbas Vs. 8. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Kanhai and another Vs. Prafull Kumar 2014 (1) ARC 77 : 2014 (2) AWC 1227 . In Kanhai (Supra) this Court placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Haidar Abbas Vs. Additional District Judge and others, 2006 (1) ARC 341 , wherein specific question was whether deposit made under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 after the date of service of summons of Civil suit for arrears of rent can be taken into consideration for computation of deposits for the purpose of deciding the question whether the defence should or should not be struck off under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. The answer given by the Division Bench is as follows: - "We, therefore, upon an analysis of the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of Order XV CPC, hold that while depositing the amount at or before the first hearing of the suit, the tenant can deduct the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act but the deposits of the monthly amount thereafter throughout the continuation of the suit must be made in the Court where the suit is filed for eviction and recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation and the amount, if any, deposited under Section 30 of the Act cannot be deducted." 9. The Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram vs. Shakuntala Rani, 2005 (3) ARC (Suppl.) 146 : (2005) 7 SCC 211 has held as as under: - "It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in the Rent Control legislation if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision." 10. It was, therefore, held that financial matter be decided strictly as per provision in a particular manner, it would not be open for the tenant to resort to any other procedure. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision." 10. It was, therefore, held that financial matter be decided strictly as per provision in a particular manner, it would not be open for the tenant to resort to any other procedure. The Act provides that in case the landlord does not accept the rent tendered by the tenant then the tenant is required to deposit the rent in the Court of Rent Controller where the suit for eviction is instituted. The deposits made under Section 30 of the Act after institution of the suit i.e. after having received the notice of the suit will not be deducted from the money which was required to be deposited on or before the first date of hearing. 11. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue of striking off defence can only be decided as preliminary issue, it would be relevant to note that an application 45-Ga2 under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. was earlier disposed of by the Court below vide order dated 27.11.2007 on the ground that in case the deposits have not been made by the tenant, it shall be considered on merits. 12. Resultantly, the deposit made by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act after the notice of the suit for eviction was served could not be looked into to provide him benefit. The tenant was rightly held in default and his defence was rightly struck off. 13. The order was challenged in revision which was dismissed. The revisional Court has directed to decide the issue of Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. first and then proceed on merits. There is no assertion of the petitioner that the evidence has been led by both the parties rather he said that the suit is at the stage of evidence. . 14. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the Court below moreso, in view of the admitted position of fact that the deposits have not been made in the Court in which the suit has been instituted. There is no infirmity in the order impugned. 15. The writ petition is dismissed.