Once the defense against eviction is struck out under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the tenant cannot lead any evidence of his own or cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses beyond pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff's case.

N. K. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) :- This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated 7-11-1987.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner ha filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The petitioner defendant filed written statement. The interim rent was determined u/ S. 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950. The non-petitioner-plaintiffs moved an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner, as he has committed default. The defence was struck off on 3/03/1986. The case was fixed for evidence of the defendant on 28-8-87 but the same was adjourned, as there was dispute that once defence had already been struck off evidence cannot proceed. The trial court was of the view that if the defendant is allowed to adduce evidence on the eviction other than default, then it would amount to reconsideration of earlier order of striking off defence dated 3/03/1986. The learned trial court also observed that the order dated 3/03/1986 was not challenged by the defendant anywhere as such it became final.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. N. M. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. L. Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

( 4 ) MR. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has acted without jurisdiction by holding that the petitioner defendant would not be entitled to adduce evidence on any of the defences available to him under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. He has submitted that entire approach of the trial court is without jurisdiction and is against law of interpretation of statute and in view of the order passed by this Court in Desraj v. Om Prakash 1987 (1) RLR 244 Civil Revision No. 676/84 decided on 11-2-1987. Mr. Lodha has submitted that when reference is pending before the Larger Bench, the court below was committed illegality and material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to lead evidence on the basis of defence available to him under the Act on another ground.

( 5 ) MR. M. L. Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Reference has nothing to do with the facts of this case. He has submitted that against the order dated 3-3-1986 by which defence of the defendant against eviction was struck off, no appeal or revision has been filed and thus it has become final. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot take the plea that other defence under the Act is available to him as per the decision of this Court in Desraj v. Omprakash. Mr. Chhangani, has placed reliance on The Managing Director Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway 1973 Lab IC 407 : AIR 1973 SC 76, Desraj v. Om Prakash, 1988 (2) RLW 497 Civil Rev, No. 540 / 88 decided on 30-8-88, Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, AIR 1989 SC 162.

( 6 ) IN this revision, point in controversy is that whether the tenant should be allowed to adduce evidence, even if his defence is struck out. One view on this aspect is that the scope of striking off of defence, should be limited, to the striking out the defence u/sec. 13 (1) (a) only and not to other defence. The other view is that once defence is struck out, it means that all the defence available to him against ejectment under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act cannot come to his rescue. But from the language used in S. 13 (5) of the Act the words are "if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-sec. (4) on the date or within time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. " There is nothing in S. 13 (5) of the Act which says defence against eviction u/ S. 13 (1) (a) will be struck off or defence against other defenc