JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Shri Manish Tandon, counsel for the revisionist and Shri Ramendra Asthana for the opposite party. 2. This SCC revision has been filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.07, Kanpur Nagar, in SCC Suit No.168 of 2015 ( Nokhe Lal Vs. Dhairya Nandan). 3. By this order, the defence of the revisionist-defendant has been ordered to be struck off, under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. 4. Assailing this order, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order impugned has wrongly been passed. The rent had been deposited in advance and therefore, the defence could not have been struck off. In case, the tenant deposits the rent in advance, there is no violation of order 15 Rule 5 CPC. 5. It is further contended that the order impugned is based on surmises and conjectures. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the impugned order. He submits that it is established on record that the revisionist-tenant was not depositing the rent regularly each month, as is the requirement under law. All except one deposit has been made belatedly. Only the last deposit can be said to be also of some advance amount. The Court below has therefore, found that the tenant had been depositing the rent on several months together and that too belatedly. It has therefore, rightly struck off the defence of the revisionist. 7. I have considered the submissions made for the parties and have perused the record especially, the impugned order as also the receipts of the deposit made by the revisionist. 8. Such perusal reveals that the rent from 01.03.2015 to 30.09.2015 was deposited on 21.10.2015. The rent from 01.01.2016 to 29.02.2016 was deposited on 15.03.2016. The rent from 01.03.2016 to 30.04.2016 was deposited on 06.05.2016. Lastly, the rent from 01.05.2016 to 31.12.2016 has been deposited on 21.10.2016. 9. Sub Rule 1 of Rule 5 of the order 15 CPC casts an obligation upon a defendant to deposit regularly, throughout the continuation of the suit, the monthly rent due, within a week from the date of its accrual and in case, the deposit is not made as aforesaid, the Court may strike off his defence. The power of the Court to strike off a defence is discretionary. 10. In the instant case, this discretion has been exercised against the revisionist. The power of the Court to strike off a defence is discretionary. 10. In the instant case, this discretion has been exercised against the revisionist. Moreover, this Court does not find any explanation as to why the monthly rent was not deposited each month as required under law and as to why the tenant revisionist was depositing the rent of several months in a lump-sum. 11. Under the circumstances and especially in the absence of any explanation for such lump-sum delayed deposits, the discretionary order impugned in this revision, calls for no interference. 12. Besides, nothing to the contrary has been held by the judgments cited by the revisionist, namely, the decision of the Apex Court in Bimal Chand Jain Vs Sri Gopal Agarwal, 1981, Allahabad Rent Cases, 463 and Satya Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Kamla Rani, 2016, Vol. 2 CAR 193(All). 13. It is clear from the dates mentioned herein-above that each months' rent was not deposited within a week from the date of its accrual. 14. The contention raised by the counsel for the revisionist that the rent was being deposited in advance, therefore, cannot be accepted. 15. The impugned order, suffers from no illegality or jurisdictional error and is liable to quashed. 16. The revision is accordingly, dismissed.