JUDGMENT The revision petitioner is a tenant of a building belonging to the respondent. The respondent riled the application before the Rent Controlling Authority seeking eviction under section 23(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground that she needed the accommodation partly for starting business and partly for the residence of herself and members of her family. The defendent filed written statement resisting the application. On account of non-deposit of rent, the defence was struck off under section 13 (6) of the Act, and ultimately the Rent Controlling Authority passed the order allowing the application. This order is now challenged in this revision petition. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though defence of the tenant was struck off he is entitled to challenge the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in regard to grounds urged in eviction application. It is necessary to closely examine the manner in which the Rent Controlling Authority conducted the proceedings and the parties participated therein. The defence was struck off on 13.7.1990 on account of non-deposit of rent as required under section 13 (1) of the Act. P. W. 1,2 and 3 were examined on 18.9.89. They were examined in chief. There was no cross-examination as counsel was engaged in another Court and sought for time. The Rent Controlling Authority directed the landlord to be present on the next date and directed the defendant to deposit' process fees for witnesses and the case was adjourned to 6.12.89. On that day it was found that the charges were not deposited. The Court granted further opportunity to make the deposit. On 6.12.89 the Authority directed that notice to be issued to the witnesses. On 9.1.90, the case was, again adjourned. On 29.1.90 it was found that process fee had not been paid. On 12.3.90 PWs were not present. Tenant's advocate again sought time, case was adjourned. On 9.4.90 the case was adjourned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 75/- on 17.4.90 and 30.4.90 cost had not been paid. On 28.5.90, Tenant sought time on the ground that his advocate was out of station. On 15.6.90 two witnesses were present but tenant sought time. The Court directed him to pay process for the witnesses. On 13.7.90 the defence was struck off and the Authority proceeded to pass eviction order. 75/- on 17.4.90 and 30.4.90 cost had not been paid. On 28.5.90, Tenant sought time on the ground that his advocate was out of station. On 15.6.90 two witnesses were present but tenant sought time. The Court directed him to pay process for the witnesses. On 13.7.90 the defence was struck off and the Authority proceeded to pass eviction order. It is true that on 13.7.90 the Authority recorded that there was no right for cross examination on account of defence being struck of but even when repeated opportunities were given to the tenant and h is counsel to cross examine witnesses they repeatedly declined to avail of the opportunities. In the circumsk1nces, I do not think any indulgence to be extended to the tenant to cross-examine his witnesses. There is no contention before me that on the material on record the findings of the Authority are not justified. I, therefore, decline to interfere and dismiss the revision petition but without any order as to casts. Tenant shall vacate the building on or before 31.10.94. The records of the Court below shall be transmitted immediately.