Honble ARORA, J. – Honble the Single Judge (Shri A.K. Mathur) referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Larger Bench- ``In the event of failure to deposit the rent, whether the whole defence under Sec. 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 will be struck out or the defence to the extent of Sec. 13(1)(a)? (2). The learned Single Judge referred the question for the opinion of the Larger Bench to set at rest the controversy because there was a difference of opinion on the point. Large number of judgments of this Court have subscribed the view that if the defence has been struck out under Sec. 13(5) or the defence under the Act, the whole defence under the Act is struck out but Honble Shri G.M. Lodha (as he then was) has taken a different view. (3). The same controversy came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of: Ramesh Chand Pandey and Anr. vs. Babu Lal and Ors. (1). The question referred in that case was Whether the order passed under Sec. 13(5) striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction would apply to all grounds of eviction specified in Sec. 13(1)(a) to (2) and other laws or such striking out is limited to the defence against eviction on the grounds specified in Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950? The Divi- sion Bench consisting of Honble the Chief Justice Shri A.P. Ravani and Honble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, while deciding the controversy, answered this question as under- ``The order passed under Sec. 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction, would apply only to the grounds of eviction specified in Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Act. (4). In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ramesh Chand Pandeys case (supra), the question referred in the present case, therefore, stands answered and adopting the same reasons we ans- wer the question in the manner that in the event of failure to deposit the rent, the whole defence under Sec. 13(5) of the Act will not be struck out but the order will apply only to the grounds or defence to the extent specified in Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1950. (5). (5). The question referred by the learned Single Judge is answered as stated above. The revision petition may now be placed before the appropriate Single Bench for hearing in accordance with law.