IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1455 of 2006 SHYAM BIHARI PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAJA LAL, RESIDENT OF HOLDING NO.-74-A, WARD NO.VIII, MOHALLA CHANCHAURA KHAWA KINARE, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA……………....DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Versus KAULESHWAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE KEDAR NATH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA, CHANCHAURA KHAWA KINARE, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA……PLAINTIFF- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate *** 4. 02.04.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. The defendant-petitioner has filed this civil revision application against the order dated 1.8.2006 passed by learned Munsif Ist, Gaya in Eviction Suit No.14 of 1998 by which the petition dated 5.7.2006 for permitting the defendant to lead further evidence has been rejected on the ground that as he had not complied with the order dated 16.11.2005 passed under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the entire defence of the defendant would be struck off. - 2 - Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even if due to non- compliance of the order passed under Section 15 of the Act, defence of the defendant was liable to be struck off, the defendant-tenant would not be completely stopped from taking his defence on other issues, not connected with the issue of his ejectment or issue of tenancy. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Sachidanand Singh Versus Smt. Tarawati Mishrain reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 195 and particularly, drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 18, 19 and 30 of the judgment wherein it has been held that after striking off the defence of the tenant against ejectment because of failure to deposit the rent, as ordered by the court, his defence as a tenant against ejectment is only struck out. It has been held that it is still open for a tenant to cross-examine and adduce evidence, on other issues, such as the question of denial of title of the landlord, denial of relationship of landlord and tenant etc. The conclusion of - 3 - the Division Bench judgment is contained in paragraph 30 thereof which is quoted below :- “After considering the aforesaid submissions my conclusions are that if the defence of the tenant is struck out the tenant is stopped from adducing his own evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses with regard to his defence qua-tenant. He is also precluded from cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses even for the limited purpose of showing the falsity and infirmity in the plaintiff’s case in view of the addition of specific provision under section 15 of the Act to the effect that the court shall not allow the defendant to cross- examine the landlord’s witnesses. However, the tenant is not stopped from adducing his own evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses with regard to his defence other than qua-tenant against ejectment.” Learned counsel for the plaintiff- landlord appears and does not deny this proposition of law. However, he submits that in the earlier revision application, the court below was directed to take up the hearing of the case on day-to-day basis and conclude the suit within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order passed by this Court on 26.3.2005. He submits that due to filing of this civil revision - 4 - application, the suit has not been decided and, therefore, an order may be passed to the court below to expedite the hearing of the case and to conclude the same as early as possible. In the circumstances, this civil revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.8.2006 is set aside and the learned court below is directed to permit the defendant-petitioner to lead further evidence in defence on other points or defence against ejectment except defence qua-tenant. Since the suit is old one and there is already direction of this Court to proceed with the suit on day-to-day basis, this Court directs the trial court to take up the case on day-to-day basis and conclude the same within a period of three months positively. It goes without saying that the defendant shall not seek any adjournment for producing his witnesses and shall produce his witnesses on each and every date and conclude his evidence in continuation. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)