N.K. JAIN J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated 7.11.1987. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner has filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The petitioner defendant filed written statement. The interim rent was determined u/sec. 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The non-petitioner-plaintiffs moved an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner, as he has committed default. The defence was struck off on 3.03.1986. The case was fixed for evidence of the defendant on 28.8.87 but the same was adjourned, as there was dispute that once defence had already been struck off evidence cannot proceed. The trial Court was of the view that if the defendant is allowed to adduce evidence on the eviction other than default, then it would amount to reconsideration of earlier order of striking off defence dated 3.03.1986. The learned trial court also observed that the order dated 3.03.1986 was not challenged by the defendant anywhere as such it became final. 3. I have heard Mr. N.M.Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.L. Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has acted without jurisdiction by holding that the petitioner defendant would not be entitled to adduce evidence on any of the defence available to him under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. He has submitted that entire approach of the trial court is without jurisdiction and is against law of interpretation of statute and in view of the order passed by this Court in Desraj Vs. Om Prakash (1). Mr. Lodha has submitted that when reference is pending before the Larger Bench, the court below has committed illegality and material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to lead evidence on the basis of defence available to him under the Act on another grounds. 5. Mr. M.L. Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the reference has nothing to do with the facts of this case. He has submitted that against the order dated 3.3. Therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to lead evidence on the basis of defence available to him under the Act on another grounds. 5. Mr. M.L. Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the reference has nothing to do with the facts of this case. He has submitted that against the order dated 3.3. 1986 by which defence of the defendant against eviction was struck off, no appeal or revision has been filed and thus it has become final. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot take the plea that other defence under the Act is available to him as per the decision of this Court in Desraj vs. Omprakash. (supra) Mr. Chhangani, has placed reliance on the Managing Director Hindustan Aeronautic Ltd. Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway (2), Deshraj Vs. Prakash{3) and Beant Singh vs. U.O.I. (4) 6. In this revision, point in controversy is that whether the tenant should be allowed to adduce evidence, even if his defence is struck out. One view on this aspect is that the scope of striking off of defence, should be limited, to the striking out the defence under Sec. 13(1) (a) only and not to other defence. The other view is that once defence is struck out, it means that all the defence available to him against ejectment Under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act cannot come to his rescue. But from the language used in section 13 (5) of the Act the words are "If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub- section (4) on the date or within time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. There is nothing in section 13(5) of the Act which says defence against eviction u/s. 13 (1) (a) will be struck off or defence against other defence will also be struck out. To my mind the words used in section 13(5) of the Act clearly means the whole defence against eviction will be struck off. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Modula India Vs. To my mind the words used in section 13(5) of the Act clearly means the whole defence against eviction will be struck off. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh interpreted section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, provisions of which are similar to section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 Section 17 (3) runs as under:- (3) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) within the time specified therein or within such extended time as may be allowed under clause (a) of sub-section (2A), or fails to deposit or pay any instalment permitted under clause (b) of sub-section (2A) within the time fixed therefore, the court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit." 7. It has been held that when the court make an order for deposit of rent, if any, and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days on the next following months, the Court shall order the defence against ejectment to be strike out and the tenant be placed in the same position as if he has not defended the claim of ejectment. It has been further held by their lordships that the defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiffs case, In no circumstances should the cross- examination be permitted to travel beyond this legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendants case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to the plaintiffs witnesses. 8. In Deshraj Vs. Omprakash (supra) Honble Mr. Justice N.M. Kasliwal as he then was held that if once question against eviction became final between the parties, the defendant cannot raise this controversy against even under the changed circumstances. Admittedly, defence has been struck off on 3.3. 1986 and no revision or appeal u/s. 22 of the Act has been filed therefore this order has become final. I am supported with the view taken by Honble Justice N.M. Kasliwal. Admittedly, defence has been struck off on 3.3. 1986 and no revision or appeal u/s. 22 of the Act has been filed therefore this order has become final. I am supported with the view taken by Honble Justice N.M. Kasliwal. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly observed that by allowing evidence, it will amount to reconsideration of order dated 3.3. 1986, which is not permitted by law. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, in my humble opinion the above stated question and the controversy of the decisions of this court set at rest by the decision of Supreme Court in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo. Thus no interference is called for. 9. In the result, this revision petition has no force so it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.