IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1486 of 2008 DHRUB KUMAR @ DHRUB KUMAR SAH Versus KAMESHWARI PRIYA POOR HOME ----------- 2 9.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Sachidanand Singh Vs. Smt. Tarawati Mishrain & Ors. reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 195 and has submitted that it is a settled law that even when defence of a tenant in a suit under BBC Act against ejectment is struck of, he cannot be altogether precluded from examining a witness on the point of arrears of rent. Counsel is absolutely correct so far the legal position is concerned but from the perusal of the impugned order as also a copy of the statement of Dular Chand Yadav on affidavit to be used by him in examination-in-chief it would transpire that by introducing the story of repair and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- spent therein by the defendant tenant, petitioner of this case, a round about plea was being developed by the petitioner for developing a defence against ejectment inasmuch as the suit for eviction has been filed both on the grounds of default in payment of 2 rent and personal necessity and by those evidence, there was a definite attempt on the part of the petitioner to bring something on record to show that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- allegedly spent in the repair of the building, was to be adjusted against the rent payable by him. The Court below, therefore, is correct in its analysis of the facts that such evidence of defendant petitioner could not have been allowed in view of the fact that his defence against ejectment has been struck of. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this civil revision application and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)