The tenant is not precluded from cross-examining the landlord's witnesses and adducing evidence on grounds other than his defense qua tenant against ejectment after his defense has been struck off under S. 15(1) of the Act.

NAGENDRA RAI, J.

1. The petitioner (defendant No. 2) has filed the present revision application against the order dated 11-3-1986, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur, in T.S. No. 250/83, by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to lead evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses even on issues not relating to the defendants against ejectment qua tenant after his defence has been struck off on account of non-payment of arrears of rent and current rent within the time granted by the Court under S. 15(1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts giving rise to the present application are that the plaintiff (opposite party No. 1) filed a suit against the defendants including the petitioner for their eviction from the suit premises, for a declaration that the defendant first party is the tenant of the suit premises and the defendant second party sub-tenant of defendant first party and also for a decree for the arrears of rent and arrears of electrical charges amounting to Rupees 2,149.30p.

3. The plaintiffs case, in brief, is that the suit premises, described in Schedules A and B of the plaint, belong to her. Defendant first party was inducted as tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 100.00 and the rent for every month was agreed to be payable on the expiry of the month within 5th day of succeeding month. He paid rent up to the month of April, 1980 only, for which rent receipts were granted on her behalf and thereafter he stopped paying rent from May, 1980 without any justification. Defendant first party shifted to Ranchi after sub-letting the suit premises, described in Schedule A, to defendant No. 2 on a monthly rental of Rs. 100.00 and also the suit premises, described in Schedule B, to defendant No. 3 on a monthly rental of Rs. 50.00 and, thus, he violated the terms and conditions of the tenancy by sub-letting the aforesaid property to the defendant second party. The defendant first party did not pay the electrical charges worth Rs. 2,149.30p. up to September, 1983, and also did not pay rent to the plaintiff from the month of May, 1980 to the month of April, 1983, but the plaintiff claimed the rent from the month of October, 1980 to the month of September, 1983, amounting to Rs. 3,600.00. Thus, the landlady claimed the eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent by the defendant first party as well as sub-letting of suit premises by him to the defendant second party.

4. The defendant-petitioner only filed the written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff. According to his case, the defendant first party was never inducted as tenant by the plaintiff. The plaintiff inducted him as tenant of Schedule A premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 100.00 in November, 1980 and defendant No. 3 was inducted as tenant of Schedule B premises on monthly rental of Rs. 75.00 in the year 1976. The claim with regard to arrears of rent was denied and with record to claim of electrical charges it was asserted that the sum given by the plaintiff is inflated one and that there is no connection since February, 1979. He is ready to pay half share of the correct charges.

5. During the pendency of the suit a petition under S. 15 of the Act filed on behalf of the landlady for a direction to the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent as well as current rent. By order dated 4-7-84 the Court below directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from October, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 100.00 in respect of Schedule A premises within 15 days and the current rent by 15th of the following month. It was further ordered that the plaintiff would not be entitled to withdraw the amount till the disposal of the suit.

6. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order came to this Court in C.R. No. 1565/84, which was withdrawn on 6-5-1985. As the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 4-7-84 the Court belo