JUDGMENT A very short point which calls for decision in this Rule is whether a tenant whose defence against ejectment has been struck out is entitled to dispute the service and validity of the notice of suit under, section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by way of cross-examining the plaintiff-landlord's witnesses or by citing witnesses on his behalf. By the impugned order dated 6.9.79 Shri C. Biswas, learned Additional Munsif, Assansol, in Title Suit No. 125 of 1977 permitted the defendant to adduce evidence on his behalf by way of denial of notice. 2. Mr. J. M. De, the learned Advocate for the landlord-petitioner challenges the order and contends that a tenant whose defence is struck out cannot be permitted to challenge the service and validity of the notice by way of adducing evidence. Mr. De in support of his contention cites the decision in the case of (1) S. B. Trading Company Ltd. v. Olympia Trading Corporation Limited and Anr., reported in AIR 1952 Cal. 685 . This was a case under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The defence against ejectment was struck out under section 14(4) of the Act. It is held therein that in such a case the defendants will not be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses on their evidence as to the facts establishing the claim to ejectment and address the Court with regard to that claim. This case is not an authority as to the point of service and validity of the notice to quit. Next reference is made to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (2) D. R. Giallatly v. J. R. W. Connon, reported in AIR 1953 Cal. 409 . This is also a case under the Act of 1950. In this case it is also held that once defence against ejectment is struck out on the ground mentioned in section 12(1) of the Act but other defences against ejectment as well. Next, reference is made to the decision in the case of (3) Satya Narain v. Naraindas Dhanuka and Ors., reported in AIR 1954 Cal. 31 . It is held therein, that there is no scope for application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C, in a case wherein the defence against ejectment of the tenant has been struck out. Next, reference is made to the decision in the case of (3) Satya Narain v. Naraindas Dhanuka and Ors., reported in AIR 1954 Cal. 31 . It is held therein, that there is no scope for application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C, in a case wherein the defence against ejectment of the tenant has been struck out. Next, my attention is drawn to the Supreme Court decision in the case of (4) Smt. Bela Das & Ors. v. Samarendra Nath Bose, reported in AIR 1975 SC 398 . It is held therein that if the landlord tenant relationship exists, on defence being struck out all defences qua-tenant stand struck out. The Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case (5) Mahabir Ram v. Shiva Shankar Prasad and Ors., reported in AIR 1968 Pat 415 is also referred to. It is held therein that when the defence qua-tenant was struck out it means that he cannot set up any defence with regard to the said notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by cross-examining the witnesses of the landlord. He also cannot adduce his own evidence on the point of non-service of the notice or its invalidity. Last of all reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of (6) Gurudas Biswas v. Charu Panna Seal & Ors., reported in AIR 1977 Calcutta 110 Two points came up for consideration before the Full Bench :-(1) Whether a defendant whose defence againt delivery of possession has been struck out under section 17(3) can take the defence of non-existance or invalidity of a notice under section 13(6) either in the Court below or in the Court of Appeal and (2) whether a defendant who has not appeared in the Court below should he permitted to take the defence as to non-existance or invalidity of notice for the first time in appeal. It is held that where in a suit for ejectment even if defence as to delivery of possession has been struck out under section 17(3) the defendant can take the defence of the non-existance or invalidity of the notice under section 13(6) in the Court below and in the Court of Appeal. It is held that where in a suit for ejectment even if defence as to delivery of possession has been struck out under section 17(3) the defendant can take the defence of the non-existance or invalidity of the notice under section 13(6) in the Court below and in the Court of Appeal. The Full Court also lays down: "It would be wrong not to permit the tenant to contend and show, if possible, on plaintiff's evidence and materials as are on record", that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree prayed for, though he would not be permitted either to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses when they give evidence or to call his own witnesses at the trial, if his defence is struck out. On the basis of this Full Bench decision it is argued by Mr. De, that the learned Munsif fell into an error in permitting the opposite-party to call his own witness to challenge the notice of suit. 3. Mr. Satya Narayan Roy, the learned Advocate for the opposite-party relies on a single Bench decision in the case of (7) N. C. Maitra v. Bhupendra Kumar Chatterjee, reported in 82 CWN 248. It is held therein that a tenant whose defence has been struck out is still permitted to contend before the Court and take the defence on point of non-service or invalidity of the notice and in doing so the tenant defendant is also permitted to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses and challenged other evidence adduced by the plaintiff as to the non-service or invalidity of the notice. Justice A. P. Bhattacharya, in this case observes that defence in any event cannot even examine a witness denying the service of notice or denying facts on the point of invalidity of the notice. As to the Full Bench decision referred to above it is observed by his Lordship that observation which has been made in the Full Bench decision was a passing observation and was not a conclusive finding. Next reference is made by Mr. Roy to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (8) Dayamoyee Sadhukhall v. Dal Singer Singh, reported in 83 CWN 663. Mr. Justice M. M. Dutt, who spoke for the Bench was a member constituting the Full Bench. Next reference is made by Mr. Roy to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (8) Dayamoyee Sadhukhall v. Dal Singer Singh, reported in 83 CWN 663. Mr. Justice M. M. Dutt, who spoke for the Bench was a member constituting the Full Bench. In this case it is held that the last portion of the observation by the Full Bench in the case of Gurudas Biswas (supra) was obiter and held that even after the defence being struck out the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses on all points and also he entitled to adduce evidence in support of their defence. It appears that their Lordship differed from the single Bench decision of Mr. Justice Bhattacharya in the case reported in 82 CWN 248. In short it is the decision of the Division Bench of this Court that a tenant whose defence has been struck out would be entitled not only to cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses but also to adduce his own evidence challenging the service and validity of the notice of suit. Mr. Roy also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (9) M/s. Paradise Industrial Corporation v. M/s. Kiln Plastics Products reported in AIR 1976 SC 309 , corresponding to 1976 (1) SCC 91 . Herein it is observed by the Supreme Court that even when a defence is struck off the defendant is entitled to appear, cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and submit that even on the basis of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff a decree cannot be passed against him. 4. It appears that the decision in this case was placed before their Lordships of the Division Bench in the case of Dayamoyee Sadhukhan (supra). 5. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of (10) Basudeo Ganeriwala and Others v. M/s. Canton Carpendry Works Private Ltd. & Others, reported in 73 CWN 365 also held that a tenant whose defence has been struck out has still the right to contest the suit and as part of this right he has the right not only to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses but also to examine his own witnesses on points outside the scope of section 13(1) of tile Act. Last of all reliance is placed on the decision of Justice Salil Kumar Datta, in the case or (11) Maharam Ali v. Dinanath Prasad Sha, reported in 77 CWN 202. His Lordship held that while challenging the notice the tenant whose defence has been struck out would be entitled to cross-examine the landlord's witnesses but according to his Lordship the tenant would not be permitted to adduce evidence in support of his own case. 6. In a suit for ejectment the basis for action is the service of notice of suit under section 13(6) of the Act. A decree cannot be passed in favour of the landlord unless it is proved that notice of the suit had been served on the tenant and the said notice is valid and sufficient. In the absence of such proof there cannot be even an ex parte decree. So, if the defence of a tenant against ejectment is struck out for noncompliance of the provisi0ns under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act such a tenant cannot be debarred from disputing the notice of suit and questioning the validity of the same. In view of, the decisions referred to above subsequent to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1977 Cal 110 , I am of the view that the learned Munsif was justified in permitting the tenant-apposite-party to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the landlord-petitioner and also to call his own witnesses to disprove the landlord's case as to notice. Thus, the Rule stands discharged. There will be no order as to costs.