JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2009, are aggrieved of order dated 19.11.2014 by which their application for closing the defendants’ evidence has been declined and the defendants have been permitted to lead evidence on the issue of arrears and adjustment of rent. 2. Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2009 has been instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent and recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 4,48,000/-. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves owner and landlords of the schedule “I” premises. They have pleaded that the defendants are occupying the suit premises on month to month tenancy; monthly rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.24,000/- which was payable by the 7th day of each calendar month. The defendant no. 2 has contested the suit raising various objections to the maintainability of the suit. He has pleaded that the schedule “I” property, which was a residential property, was let out to him for commercial purposes. The defendant no. 2, however, admits that under the rent agreement monthly rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 24,000/-, however, he has claimed that out of the said amount, Rs.8,000/- was agreed to be adjusted every month (para 7). He has further asserted that the suit premises was an old construction which was remodeled by him through scraping, plastering etc. Paragraph no. 8 of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 2 reads as under : “8. That the house being old one was remodeled by scrapping the plaster, putting Iron framing, constructing attached Bath Rooms, Latrine in each room, floor was converted by putting Marble and Tiles, Portico was constructed, each rooms was fitted with A.C. and modern furnitures, Beds Dunlop Pillows, Fans, T.V. etc to give a colour of five Star Hotel so that the Hotel may fetch customers. The defendants also got a dug Deep Boring for supply of regular water and in process to that spent near about Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs to the hostile knowledge of the plaintiffs since the copy of the expenses, Bills used to be supplied to the plaintiffs who used to acknowledge the same.” 3. By an order dated 06.09.2011 the application under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 was allowed and the defendants were directed to deposit Rs. By an order dated 06.09.2011 the application under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 was allowed and the defendants were directed to deposit Rs. 6,40,000/- as the arrears of rent and the current rent from May, 2010. This order was challenged by the defendants in W.P.(C) No. 5903 of 2011, however, without success, but with liberty to them to comply with order dated 06.09.2011 in three installments. Thereafter, the defendants deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 06.03.2012, but on their failure to comply with the order passed under Section 15, their defence has been stuck out by an order dated 06.03.2012. Thereafter, the plaintiffs laid their evidence and their evidence was closed by an order dated 15.09.2012. About one and half years thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed a petition for closing the defendants’ evidence; by that time the defendants had examined two witnesses. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 19.11.2014. 4. Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once defence of the defendants has been stuck out under Section 15 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, the defendants cannot be permitted to lead evidence in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the legislative intendment as reflected under the expression “the court shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses” under Section 15 leaves no manner of doubt that a defendant cannot be permitted to lead evidence in the suit once his defence for non-compliance of the order passed under Section 15 has been struck out. Further contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the defendants who have admittedly raised construction in breach of clause 7 of the agreement and Section 9(2) of the 2000 Act does not permit a tenant to carry out alterations beyond one month’s rent, the tenant cannot be permitted to lead evidence on the aforesaid issue. 5. Section 15 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 reads as under : “15. 5. Section 15 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 reads as under : “15. Deposit of rent by tenants in suits for ejectment.-(1) If, in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant contests the suit as regards claim for ejectment, landlord may move an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit rent month by month at a rate at which it was last paid and also subject to the law to limitation, the arrears of rent, if any, and the Court after giving opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make any order for deposit of rent month by month at such rate as may be determined and the arrears of rent, both before [or] after the institution of the suit if any and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of order or the rent at such rate for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month; the Court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck off and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment and further the Court shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses. (2) If in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable the Court may direct the tenant to deposit in Court the amount payable by him under sub-section (1) and in such case no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Court decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same. (3) If the Court is satisfied that any dispute referred to in sub-section (2) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous the Court may order the defence against the eviction to be struck off and proceed with the hearing of the suit as laid down in sub-section (1).” 6. Whether a tenant can be permitted to adduce evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses on any other issue except the grounds for ejectment has been authoritatively decided by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in “Mahabir Ram Vs. Whether a tenant can be permitted to adduce evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses on any other issue except the grounds for ejectment has been authoritatively decided by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in “Mahabir Ram Vs. Shiva Shanker Prasad and Others” reported in AIR 1968 Patna 415. In the said case the Court has held as under : “18. Learned counsel, Mr. J.C. Sinha for the plaintiffs (opposite party Nos. 1 to 3) contended that the petitioner was not entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses even on the question of title and in support of it, he referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in, 1967 BLJR 44. The petitioners in that case had instituted suits for the eviction of the tenants and for recovery of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suits, they filed an application under Section 11A of the Buildings Control Act for a direction to the defendants to deposit the monthly rent and also the arrear rent due from them. The court, passed an order directing the defendants to deposit the arrear rent and the monthly rent within a certain time, but on their failure to make the deposit their defence was struck out on the 24th of July, 1962 as provided under Section 11A. On the date of hearing, however, the defendants wanted to adduce evidence and cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses and that was permitted by the court on the 7th of August, 1963. The order of the court was that the written statement of the defendants had been struck off so far as their defence on the point of their eviction as tenants was concerned, but their other defences with regard to the title of the plaintiffs etc., taken by them would stand as they were. This order was the subject matter of revision at the instance of the plaintiffs. H. Mahapatra and A.B.N. Sinha, JJ. This order was the subject matter of revision at the instance of the plaintiffs. H. Mahapatra and A.B.N. Sinha, JJ. held that there was nothing wrong in the first part of that order and observed that on the failure of the defendant to make the deposit as ordered by the court, his defence in regard to ejectment had to be struck out and he would be deemed not to have claimed any defence against that relief of the plaintiff, but it did not mean that his other defence, for example, in regard to arrear rent as claimed by the plaintiff would stand struck out and it would be still open to such a defendant to show during the trial that either the whole amount claimed by the plaintiff or a part of it was not due from him. A question arose as to whether the defendant whose defence was struck out under S. 11A would suffer and to be placed in a great predicament, if he succeeded in proving to the court's satisfaction at the final hearing of the suit that no rent was in arrears and this question was answered by their Lordships in the following manner : "We do not think that there will be any hardship to the defendant in such a case at all. His defence in regard to arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff will still be available to him to substantiate during the trial, and if he does so the court will come to the conclusion that no arrear rent was due to the plaintiff. Although the defendant's defence about ejectment is struck out, the court will not necessarily pass a decree for ejectment in all cases. Even where the defence is struck out, the plaintiff will still be required to adduce evidence in support of his claim. If his evidence falls short or if evidence of the defendant in regard to matters other than ejectment leads the court to the conclusion that none of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 for ejectment is present in a particular case, the plaintiff will not succeed in getting a decree for ejectment. If his evidence falls short or if evidence of the defendant in regard to matters other than ejectment leads the court to the conclusion that none of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 for ejectment is present in a particular case, the plaintiff will not succeed in getting a decree for ejectment. It cannot, therefore be said that the provisions under Section 11A are utterly and always to the disadvantage of the defendant tenants." In view of the observations, quoted above, there can be no doubt that even after striking out of the defence against ejectment; it is open to the defendant (tenant) to establish at the hearing of a suit that in fact rent was not in arrear provided the suit is for the realisation of arrears of rent also. In the present case before us, there is no question about the petitioner's right to cross examine the plaintiffs' witnesses with regard to the arrears of rent and as such Mr. J.C. Sinha had nothing to say one way or the other with regard to the observations of their Lordships, quoted above, but he relied on the other part of that decision which is in the following terms : "In the written statement, the defendants raised a plea that they had title to the property, and the plaintiffs had no title over it. This was also in connection with the ejectment. If they would be permitted to lead evidence or prove their plea of title that will be only in answer to the plaintiffs' claim of ejectment of the defendants from the suit houses. If the defence in regard to ejectment was struck out, that would also include the defendants' plea against the plaintiffs' title and asserting their own title. That part of the order was obviously wrong, and, therefore, civil revisions nos. 1347, 1348 and 1349 of 1963 will have to be allowed, as far as the latter part of the impugned order is concerned." These observations undoubtedly support the contention of Mr. J.C. Sinha that the particular defence against ejectment having been struck out, he was not entitled to cross examine the plaintiffs' witnesses on the question of title and prove his own title. J.C. Sinha that the particular defence against ejectment having been struck out, he was not entitled to cross examine the plaintiffs' witnesses on the question of title and prove his own title. It is perfectly true that the plea taken by the petitioners that he had title to the house, and the plaintiffs had no title over it, is a plea in connection with ejectment, but all the same it is not a plea in the capacity of a tenant or qua tenant. The attention of their Lordships does not seem to have been drawn to this aspect and character of the defence which is taken by a defendant in a suit for his eviction. I thus do not find any warrant for the proposition laid down that "if the defence in regard to ejectment was struck out, that would also include the defendants' plea against the plaintiffs' title and asserting their own title." I have already analysed the provisions of Section 11A and the correct meaning of the words "the defence against ejectment" is the defence of the tenant or of the defendant, who is proved to be the tenant against ejectment. In other words, it is the defence of the tenant and tenant alone against ejectment which can be struck out. Mr. J.C. Sinha was extremely fair while giving his own interpretation of the provisions of Section 11A and in view of the word '"tenant" occurring at so many places in that section, whose defence could be struck off, he could not seriously press that striking out of a defence of the tenant against ejectment would mean that the defence with regard to the non-existence of the title of the plaintiff landlord also in respect of the house in question had to be struck out. For the reasons given above. I have to say with great respect that the view taken by their Lordships in Chaturbhuj Mistry's case, 1967 BLJR 44 that striking out of the defence in regard to ejectment meant that the defendant's plea against the plaintiffs' title and asserting their own title also had been struck out is not correct and the decision on that point cannot stand as a bar to the petitioner's cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiffs on the question of title in the present case.” 7. A similar issue was again examined by the Court in “Sachidanand Singh Vs. A similar issue was again examined by the Court in “Sachidanand Singh Vs. Tarawati Mishrain” reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 195 . It has been held that even after striking out the defence of the tenant on failure to deposit the rent as ordered by the Court under Section 15 (unamended Section 11 A), it still shall remain open to the tenant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and adduce evidence on other defences, such as the question of denial of title of the landlord, denial of landlord- tenant relationship etc. In the said case, the tenant was permitted to lead evidence on the issue, whether the plaintiff can claim arrears of rent or not. In Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2009, the plaintiffs have claimed arrears of rent and by an order dated 06.09.2011 the trial Judge has directed the defendants to pay Rs. 6,40,000/- as arrears of rent. The defendants, in the aforesaid facts, cannot be precluded from leading evidence on the issue whether there was any arrears of rent or not and particularly when they have asserted that out of the agreed monthly rent, Rs. 8000/- was to be adjusted against the cost of remodeling of the suit premises. The plea raised by the petitioners that the defendants who have raised alterations in breach of clause 7 of the agreement and who cannot carry out alterations beyond one month’s rent without the landlord’s consent, is an issue which requires evidence. Obviously, the aforesaid issue can be decided only after the parties have led evidence in the suit. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.11.2014, the writ petition is dismissed, however, it is clarified that the defendants shall not be permitted to lead evidence on the issue of default in payment of rent. 9. I.A. No. 1628 of 2015 and I.A No. 5050 of 2018 stand dismissed.