( 1 ) A learned single Judge of this Court (Shri V. D. Gyani, J.) has made this reference to this Court to decide the following question of law : "whether the Rent Controlling Authority, while dealing with an application under S. 23a of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, has power to strike out tenant's defence under S. 13 (6) of the said Act for non-compliance of S. 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?

( 2 ) SHORT facts, material for the decision of this reference may be stated, in brief, thus : The respondent, a retired Government servant, who is covered under S. 23-J as a landlord for the purpose of Chap. III-A, filed an application under S. 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the petitioners, as tenants before the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore on 15-3-1985 seeking ejectment on the ground that he bona fide required the residential part of the suit accommodation for his own residence and the non-residential part thereof for starting his son's business of rent from 1-5-1970 till 31-12-1984 at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month, which was the standard rent fixed, amounting to Rs. 10. 560/- and an amount of Rs. 120/- on account of mesne profits for the period 10-1-1985 till 28-2-1985 in all totalling Rs. 10,680/ -. He, therefore, also claimed a decree for arrears of rent, mesne profits and also decree of eviction on the ground of default in making payment of rent, despite service of notice as contemplated by S. 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and also claimed future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenants (who are the legal representatives of the original tenant) after obtaining leave to defend the case contested the landlord's case by denying the landlord's alleged bona fide requirement and also denying their liability to pay arrears of rent, as demanded by the landlord, which they had disputed.

( 4 ) AS the petitioners did not deposit the arrears of rent or the current monthly rent which became due after the filing of the case before the Rent Controlling Authority, the respondent-landlord filed an application on 12-6-1985 with a prayer to strike out the petitioner's defence against eviction. A reply to this application was filed by the petitioners on 5-7-1985. The learned Rent Controlling Authority, after hearing the arguments found that as the petitioners had not filed their written statement till then, there was no question of striking out the defence. He, therefore, directed the petitioners to file their written statement, which was actually filed on 29-10-1985.

( 5 ) THE said application dt. 12-6-1985 filed by the respondent landlord for striking out the petitioners defence against eviction, was again fixed for arguments and the learned Rent Controlling Authority by placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision reported in 1985 MPRCJ 127 (S. Sundaram v. V. R. Pattabhiraman) and placing reliance on another decision of this Court reported in 1984 MPRCJ (Note) 112 (Ramji Das v. Mst. Ratanbai) struck off the petitioners' defence and ordered their eviction within two months of the date of the order dt. 16-12-85. The petitioners challenged the said order in C. R. No. 65 of 1986, which was partly allowed on 14-1-87 and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controlling Authority for recording evidence as the previous order dt. 16-12-85 was passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority without recording any evidence whatsoever in support of the respondents case. However, the order as regards striking out of the defence was maintained.

( 6 ) AFTER remand, the Rent Controlling Authority recorded respondents evidence and passed the impugned order of ejectment on 21-5-87 in case No. 90/7/188/84-85 by holding that the respondent has succeeded in proving his case of bona fide requirement in respect of the suit accommodation.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present revision petition in