JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J.— Lodha J. has referred the following question to this Division Bench :

"Whether in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-sec. the defence against eviction cannot be struck out under sub-sec. (6) for noncompliance of sub-sec. (4) in a case where a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed default in payment of rent as contemplated by sec. 13, sub-sec.(1) (a) of the Act."

2. The reason why this reference became necessary is that in Vishwanath Singh vs. Gopilal(l) Bhargava J. took the view that if in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed such default then the court cannot strike out his defence under sec. 13(4) on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent on the first day of hearing and on his failure to pay future rent month by month in accordance with that clause unless the question of his having committed defaults is first determined and it is held that he has actually committed default. Lodha J. was of the opinion that this view is incorrect and that all that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document