Once the defense of the tenant is struck off against the default, the tenant cannot put forward any defense against the allegation of default.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Precisely, the point raised before this Court by the appellant/tenant is that the two Courts below failed to notice that the plaintiff failed in proving the issue No. 3 framed by the trial Court.

3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, two Court below failed to even record any finding that the appellant/tenant did not tender the amount of rent to the plaintiff /landlord and has not paid the rent of the premises for six months before plaintiff filed the suit.

4. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, in view of the Judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Phool Chand & Anr. vs. Dr. Gulab Chand, reported in 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 771, in absence of pleadings about failure of the tenant to tender rent, no cause of action accrues to the landlord to file suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. It is also submitted that both the Courts below merely on the fact that the defence of the defendant was struck off which was upheld upto the High Court, the tenant is defaulter and liable for eviction from the premises in question.

5. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, in fact, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground of default alleging that the defendant failed to pay the rent from the month of January, 1976 till the month of September, 1976 whereas in fact, the tenant remitted the rent of the premises by money order but the landlord did not accept the rent and, therefore, since the tenant not only offered but in fact, he actually tendered the rent to the landlord, therefore, he cannot be said to be defaulter for that period.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further vehemently submitted that the money orders receipt which should have been placed before the trial Court but were not produced because of the fault of the advocate as the original money order coupon and receipts were given to the advocate by the appellant/tenant and the appellant came to know about this fact only at the time of filing of second appeal and since the documents are relevant and having material bearing for just and legal decision of the suit, therefore, the appellant submitted application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC and produced the original money order coupon and receipts alongwith application. It is submitted that in view of the Judgment s of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Wadi vs. Amilal & Ors., reported in 2002 WLC (SC) Civil 726 and (2) Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) by Lrs. vs. Sardar Dastur School Trust & Ors., reported in JT 2005 (2) SC 332, the documents which have been filed by the appellant may be taken on record and he may be permitted to produce the evidence. It is submitted that when the documents are relevant and trustworthy, then it is always held that those documents should not be allowed.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.

8. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for eviction of his tenant in the year 1976 on the ground of default in payment of rent and on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiff . The plaintiff in his plaint clearly pleaded that the rent for the period from January, 1976 till the filing of the suit has not been paid by the tenant. The defendant submitted in his written statement that the defendant offered the rent to the landlord but he refused to accept and, therefore, he sent rent by money order for the period from 01.01.1976 to 31.08.1976 but that rent was not accepted by the landlord and he refused to accept the money order. The trial Court determined the rent and directed the tenant to pay the determined rent so that the tenant may take the benefit of first default in payment of rent and may avoid decree for eviction. However, the tenant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(4) and, therefore, the tenants defence was struck off by the trial Court. The tenant challenged