Prabha Shankar Mishra, J.

1. The landlord appellant who has sought eviction of the defendant-respondent from a building let out to him on rent has appealed. Although at the hearing of the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the only question of law framed was whether the court of appeal below has committed error of law in reversing the finding of the trial court on the question of arrears of rent and personal necessity in so far as the default and eviction of the respondent is concerned, when the defence stood struck out for non-compliance with the order of depositing arrears of rent Under Sec.11-A of the Bihar Building (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the learned Counsel for the appellant has confined the hearing of the appeal to the question of default only he has broaden the issue by adding certain ancillary and consequential contentions. He has, accordingly canvassed before me that (1) on the defence of the defendant tenant having been struck out any plea qua eviction on his behalf is not entertainable; the court of appeal below has committed error of law in holding that the order Under