The defense that is struck off under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, is only the defense qua-tenant and not other defenses that would enable the tenant to prove the absence of title in the plaintiff and/or the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This civil revision application involves an interesting question of law with regard to the interpretation of second part of Sec. 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to the said Act).

2. Shorn of all unnecessary details the fact of the matter is as follows:

The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction as against the defendant-petitioner in the court of Munsif 2nd Court, Kishanganj, which was registered as Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1983.

3. The defendant petitioner filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party in the 8aid suit for eviction.

4. On 28.3.1985 the plaintiff-opposite-party filed an application in terms of Sec. 15 of the said Act for a direction that the defendant be asked to deposit the arrears of rent as well as current and future monthly rent. By an order, dated 20th March, 1987 the said application was allowed and the defendant was directed to deposits before the learned Court below a sum of Rs. 1260 towards arrears of rent. In the said order the trial court observed that although the defendant has challenged the title of the plaintiff with regard to the suit premises; but as he himself admitted to be a tenant o a 3rd party and not under the plaintiff; the plaintiff would not be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit. A copy of the said order, dated 20th March, 1987 is contained in Annexure-1 to the civil revision application.

5. The defendant-petitioner admittedly did not deposit the said amount as a result whereof his defence was directed to be struck-off by an order, dated 8.3.1987. By the said order the defendant-petitioner was debarred from cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiff even with regard to her title and was also debarred from examining any witness in support of his own title.

6. In this case a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party. In the said counter-affidavit the plaintiff opposite party inter alia, stated that she had title in respect of the property in question. It has further been mentioned therein that the trial court in its order, dated 20th March, 1987 directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and further directed him to go on depositing the current and the further monthly rental at the rate claimed by the plaintiff-opposite party by 15th day of each month succeeding to the English calendar month.

It further appears that the defendant petitioner was given several opportunities to comply with the aforementioned order, dated 20th March, 1987 and by an order, dated 21.4.1987 the trial court directed the defendant-petitioner to comply with the said order by 28.4.1987.

It appears that plaintiff-opposite party his examined several witnesses with regard to her title in respect of the suit premises.

7. Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that upon a proper construction of Sec. 15 of the said Act it would be evidence that the power of the court to strike-off the defendant of a tenant is confined to such defences which are raised by him as a tenant and not otherwise. In this connection the learned Counsel has placed strong reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Muhabir Ram V/s. Shanker Prasad and Ors. 1986 PLJR p. 75.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Subhro Sanyal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted that the aforesaid Full Bench decision was rendered while Sec. 11-A of the Bihar Buldings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 was in force and the said provision being not in pari material with Sec. 15 of the said Act, the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

9. According to Mr. Sanyal, the legislature while enacting Sec. 15 of the Act in its wisdom having specifically inserted the words "and further the Court shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the l