JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant who is facing proceedings for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, material alteration etc. In the said proceedings his defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 15.12.2016 and this order attained finality as the revision and the writ petition filed against it were also dismissed. In the said background, the petitioner moved application 76Ga-2 that he is filing his statement on affidavit in evidence and that the same may be accepted. The aforesaid application was rejected by the small causes court vide order dated 10.09.2012. The revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the order dated 14.12.2015. In challenging the above two orders the submission of Sri Tripathi is that his defence has been struck off for non-payment of rent and that he is not precluded from adducing evidence on points other than default in payment of rent. It is settled law that once evidence has been ordered to be struck off the defended is precluded from adducing any evidence in defence though he may cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and argue the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. This is what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo AIR 1989 SC 162 which was a case under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in contrast to the present suit which is one under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The Supreme Court therein observed as under:- "Even in a case where the defence against delivery of possession of a tenant is struck off under Section 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 be entitled (a) to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses; and (b) to address argument on the basis of the plaintiff's case." In view of above decision, the petitioner has no right to adduce evidence of his own on any point once his evidence has been struck off. The order striking off the evidence of the defendants precludes him for adducing evidence in the suit as a whole on any point. The order striking off the evidence of the defendants precludes him for adducing evidence in the suit as a whole on any point. Such an order would not be read to mean that it strikes the evidence of the defendant for a limited purpose regarding the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The striking of evidence means debarring the defendant from adducing evidence in entirety and not in piece meal. The courts below have not committed any error of jurisdiction or any illegality in refusing to entertain the evidence of the petitioner in the form of the affidavit. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.