DYAL SINGH Vs. POONAM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petitionhas been filed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, Jaipur City (East) dated December 8, 1977.

(2.) In a suit for eviction on the basis of personal necessity, sub-letting and defaults in payment of rent, the defence of the defendant against eviction was struck off, as he failed to comply with an order passed by the trial Court under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the Act"). After the closure of the plaintiff's evidence the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant on September 7, 1977. The defendant took some adjournments and thereafter his statement was partly recorded on November 28, 1977 on that day, the defendant desired to prove 33 receipts, which, according to him, were signed and given by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of rent, house tax etc. The defendant also filed an application on December 8, 1977 before the trial Court paying that he may be allowed to prove the receipts in question, which have been marked as Ex. A1 to Ex. A33. The stand of the plaintiff was that as the defence of the defendant against eviction has been struck off, he could not be allowed to prove the receipts in question. The trial Court by its impugned order dated December 8, 1977 disallowed the defendant to prove the receipts and rejected the defendant's application in that respect. He also closed the evidence of the defendant by the same order on the ground that several opportunities had already been afforded to the defendant to lead his evidence and no further opportunity can be allowed to him to do so. This order passed by the learned Munsif has been challenged in the present revision application.

(3.) It is settled law that if in a suit for eviction, the defence of the defendant is struck of, then he cannot be allowed to lead evidence in respect of the defence pertaining to his liability to ejectment or the loss of protection of the provisions of the Act. But the defendant cannot be prohibited from leading evidence in respect of other matters, including the special defences taken by him in the suit. In Nana Shah v. Ramkukar,1966 RajLW 446, Bhandari, J. as he then was observed as under :-