Judgment Satyeshwar Roy, J. 1. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the appellants. A suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 plaintiff for eviction of the appellants and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 defendant Nos. 1 and 2, from a building on the ground of default in paying the rent for more than two months, breach of the terms of the tenancy and also on the ground that the respondent No. 1 required the building bona fide for his use and occupation. The trial Court on the basis of ex parte evidence led on behalf of the respondent No. 1 found all the claims of the respondent No. 1 as correct and decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred by all the defendants including the two appellants. The Court below dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 2. When this appeal was taken up for hearing substantial question of law as framed on 6-3-80 was reframed so far the point No. 2 is concerned. It was contended that in view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the appellants in their written statement their defense against the ejectment could have been struck of notwithstanding non-compliance of the order passed under Sec.11-A of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (the Act). 3. In order to appreciate the point, it is necessary to state that the respondent No. 1 in the plaint has stated that Ram Gopal Pasari the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants including the appellants took the building under the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 17.50. In the joint written statement filed by the appellants they stated that the building filed by the appellants they stated that the building was permanently settled by the owner Nathu Ram Kediya with Banshi Das Pasari father of Ram Gopal Pasari about 65 years back on an annual rent of Rs. 211- On the basis of this averment made in the written statement it was contended that since they did not accept the respondent No. 1 as their landlord, their defense against the ejectment could have been struck off. 4. In the trial Court an application was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 under Sec.11-A of the Act. 211- On the basis of this averment made in the written statement it was contended that since they did not accept the respondent No. 1 as their landlord, their defense against the ejectment could have been struck off. 4. In the trial Court an application was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 under Sec.11-A of the Act. The trial Court by an order dated 24-7-75, directed the defendants including the appellants to pay arrears as well as current rents within the stipulated time. The defendants failed to comply with the order. The trial court on 2-9-75 ordered for striking the defense of the appellants against the ejectment. The suit was, thereafter heard ex parte and was decreed by the trial Court. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that the trial Court could not have struck off the defense of the appellants and heard the suit ex parte. It was urged that the appellants were entitled to cross-examine the witnesses and lead evidence in support of their case. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 submitted that Nathu Ram Kediya was the ancestor of the respondent No. 1 and as the appellants admitted that the building was leased out to the appellants by Nathu Ram Kediya, they must be held to have admitted that the respondent No. 1 was the landlord in respect to the suit property. There is no material in the pleadings to show the relationship of respondent No. 1 with Nathu Ram Kediya. Whether the defense against the ejectment cannot be struck off, quo tenant shall have to be decided on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence, if any, led by the parties at the time of hearing the application under Sec.11-A of the Act. In the written statement as noticed above, there is no denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondent No. 2. No evidence was led by the parties at the stage when on 24-5-75 Court below passed the order. The written statement of the appellants, therefore, could not have been-heard ex parte. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for hearing. The written statement of the appellants, therefore, could not have been-heard ex parte. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for hearing. It shall give opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent No. 1 and shall allow it to lend evidence in support of their case. There shall be no order as to costs.