ORDER R.D. Shukla, J. -- 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6.4.92 passed in Civil Suit No.110-A/89 whereby the plaintiffs three applications; one, for amendment in the pleading, other for amendment in the issues and the third for examination of rent receipts by an expert have been rejected. 2. The brief history of the case is that plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit in the Court of Vth Addl. Distt. Judge, Indore with the assertions that he is the landlord of the suit premises. It is bona fide required by the plaintiff and its partners, that defendant has failed to pay rent @ 2,100/- per month and, therefore, is liable for eviction. It was also asserted that he purchased the suit premises from the heirs of one Shri Hemchandra Mishra on a consideration of Rs. 1,61,000/vide registered deed dated 29.4.87. The suit has been filed on 20.7.89. 3. The defendant denied the assertions of the plaintiff and submitted that plaintiff does not require it for personal need. The defendant denied the relationship of tenant and landlord. It was further asserted that they have never agreed to pay rent @ 2,100/-permonth as he was paying Rs. 350/- per month to previous landlord (Le., predecessor- in- interest of plaintiff). 4. As the defendant did not pay the rent the plaintiff filed an application u/s. 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The Trial Court directed the defendant to deposit the rent (1) 2,100/- per month for the period from 1.10.87 to 31.8.90 by 13.9.90. The defendant failed to pay the rent as directed. 5. Thereafter on the application of the plaintiff the learned Trial Court directed for striking off the defence of defendant vide Order dated 25.1.90. 6. The defendant filed a Revision (C.R. No. 302/90) against the said order. The same was dismissed vide Order dated 16.12.90 of this Court passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 7. The defendant thereafter filed application for amendment u/s 6, R. 17 C.P.C. The same was also rejecied. The defendant again filed a C.R. No. 124/91. That Revision has also been rejected vide Order dated 1.4.91 of this Court. 8. The case was fixed for evidence. Meanwhile the defendant prayed for adjournment on the basis of change of advocate. It appears that the defendant was changing the advocates off and on. The defendant again filed a C.R. No. 124/91. That Revision has also been rejected vide Order dated 1.4.91 of this Court. 8. The case was fixed for evidence. Meanwhile the defendant prayed for adjournment on the basis of change of advocate. It appears that the defendant was changing the advocates off and on. However, these three applications, as referred to above, were filed thereafter. Learned Trial Judge has rejected those applications. Hence this revision. 9. Now, so far as the application u/o 14, R. 5 C.P.C. is concerned, i.e. with respect to framing of new issues. On perusal of issues it appears that the matter is covered by the Issues already framed. The same has been observed by the Trial Court as well. Learned counsel for the defendant-applicant also did not press this point. 10. Similarly, it appears that the amendment application u/o 6, R. 17 C.P.C. were rejected earlier. C.R. No. 124/91 has also been dismissed and thereafter that has also been finalised. Hence, there is no case for further amendment in the matter. 11. On perusal of record it appears that the prayer of plaintiff with respect to amendment of pleading and amendment in issues were rejected vide Order dated 7.8.91 and the revision against the said order was also dismissed and, therefore, the defendant cannot be allowed to agitate the same by way of new revision again. 12. Learned Trial Judge has allowed the part of the amendment regarding the legal pleading and, therefore, no interference with respect to order regarding amendment of pleading and issues are required. 13. The last and most important contention of the counsel for defendant is that defendant has denied the rate and quantum of the rent. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that despite the striking off the defence the defendant is entitled to contest the quantum of rent and is further entitled to disprove it by adducing evidence. It has also been submitted that the striking off defence would be limited to defence u/s 12 of the Act and, therefore, defences under the general law is available to the defendant. 14. As against it learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant has submitted that defendant has adopted a dilatory tactics. He has not deposited the rent as directed by the Court. 14. As against it learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant has submitted that defendant has adopted a dilatory tactics. He has not deposited the rent as directed by the Court. It has also been submitted that he was tenant of previous owner of the house and the rent at the rate admittedly paid to the earlier owner has also not been deposited and, therefore, he is riot entitled to get the receipts examined by the expert and he is further not entitled to examine any witnesses in rebuttal of the contention of the plaintiff. It has also been submitted that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the rate and quantum of the rent and the same will be done by him. 15. No doubt it is true that u/s 13 of the Act if the defendant fails to deposit the rent (including the standard rent, if any, determined by the Court) his defences are likely to be struck off. But it has to be seen that what are the consequences of such striking off defence. This matter was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Premdas v. Laxmi Narayan (1964 JLJ 87). The following expression of the D.B. is relevant for the decision of this case.- "The expression "defence against eviction" used in sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) of section 13 means the defence against eviction resting on section 12 of the Act and when an order under those sub-sections is made striking out the tenant's defence against eviction, the tenant does not lose his right of putting up a defence to the ejectment suit which does not fall under Sec. 12." 16. A similar point was raised before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and it has been decided by their Lordships in Mdula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo ( AIR 1989 SC 162 ) wherein it has been observed thus: "Even in a case where the defence against delivery of possession of a tenant is struck off under S. 17 (3) the defendant tenant, subject to the exercise of an appropriate discretion by the Court on the facts of a particular case, would generally by entitled (a) to cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses; and (b) to address argument on the basis of the plaintiffs case. However, when the defendant is afforded the aforesaid right he would not be entitled to led any evidence of his own nor can his cross- examination he 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 he permitted to travel beyond this legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendant's case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to the plaintiffs witnesses. "True full effect should be given to the words that defence against ejectment is struck off. But does this really deprive the defendant tenant of further participation in the case in any manner? While it is true that, in a broad sense, the right of defence takes in, within its canvass, all aspects including the demolition of the plaintiffs case by the cross-examination of his witnesses, it would be equally correct to say that the cross- examination of the plaintiff's witnesses really constitutes a finishing touch which completes the plaintiff's case." 17. In such cases where a suit for eviction and for recovery of rents has been filed the defendant shall have to suffer the consequences of striking off defence u/s 12 of the Act and he has to further suffer the money-decree for arrears of rent. 18. Therefore, because of the striking off the defence he may not he entitled to adduce his defence to rebut the contention of the plaintiff for showing the grounds of eviction u/s 12 of the Act though he is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and demonstrate that they arc not truthful and reliable. But he is definitely entitled to contest and disprove the rate and quantum or rent as shown by the plaintiff. 19. The following observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in Kewal Sharma v. Satish Chandra Gothi and Anr. But he is definitely entitled to contest and disprove the rate and quantum or rent as shown by the plaintiff. 19. The following observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in Kewal Sharma v. Satish Chandra Gothi and Anr. ( 1991 JLJ 86 ) is very relevant for decision of this case-- "Even where the defence against eviction in a suit also based on the ground under section 12(1) (a) of the Act, is struck out in terms of section 13(6) for non-payment of reasonable provisional rent, as fixed under section 13(2) of the Act, the tenant shall still he en titled to contest the issue as regards the quantum of rent, which is different from the ground upon which eviction may he sought under section 12 (1) of the Act." 20. It is thus clear that the tenant can well demonstrate that the arrears as claimed arc not due when the issues in the suit arc tried in those proceedings, the defendant shall get a right to rebut those issues. If this is not permitted the tenant shall have to suffer a decree for certain amounts allegedly due as arrears of rent but without any opportunity to him to contest that fact in issue. 21. As a matter of practice this contest of rate and quantum of rent should be raised at the earliest stage immediately after the request by the plaintiff for direction to deposit the rent or for striking off the defence i.e. to say that before the interim rent is fixed by the Court on the basis of pleading of the parties. In this case also the defendant could have made an application for examination of documents, if any, or receipt of rent by an expert as a rebuttal of the contention of the plaintiff hut the same was not done. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case since it has he en asserted by the defendant that the receipts produced by the plaintiff are forged and he neither agreed to pay nor paid rent @ Rs. 2,100/- the interest of justice requires that he should be given an opportunity to get those receipts examined by an expert. 22. 2,100/- the interest of justice requires that he should be given an opportunity to get those receipts examined by an expert. 22. On a perusal of record it appears that much delay has been caused in the case and mostly defendant is responsible for the delay including this belated application for examination of receipts by Handwriting Expert and, therefore, certain directions for early disposal of case is also necessary. 23. As a consequence the Revision is partly allowed. The order of the rejection of the prayer for examining the Rent Receipts produced by the plaintiff by a Handwriting Expert is set-aside. 24. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 11.11.1992. No further notice would he required to them. The defendant shall get the photographs of the document examined by a Handwriting Expert of his choice and shall further file the report of the Expert within a month thereafter. The defendant shall be free to get the document examined by the expert of his own choice and after filing the report by defendant or by both parties. The examination of the Expert at the risk of the party shall he done within month thereafter. The parties shall he further free to take the help of the Handwriting Expert for cross-examination of other Handwriting Expert. It is desirable that the suit is decided within four months from the date of the first appearance i.e. 11.11.1002. 25. In the facts and circumstnaces of the case the parties shall hear their own cost of this revision.