Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the decisions of Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 162, Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Santosh Kumari, reported in (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 600, Shankarlal Laxminarayan Rathi & Ors. vs. Gangabisen Maniklal Sikchi & Anr., reported in AIR 1972 Bombay 326, Smt. Nandita Bose vs. Ratanlal Nahata, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1947 in support of his submissions.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and we have given our thoughtful considerations to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is the settled principles of law that in a case where the defence against the delivery of possession of a defendant is struck off, the tenant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own and no cross-examination should be permitted travelling beyond the limited objective of pointing out the falsity of the plaintiff's case.

Reference may be made to the decision of Modula India (supra) and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out below:

" For the above reasons, we agree with the view of Ramendra Mohan Datta, ACJ, that, even in a case where the defence against delivery of possession of a tenant is struck off under Section 17(4) of the Act, the defendant, subject to the exercise of an appropriate discretion by the Court on the facts of a particular case, would generally be entitled: