the appellant a companypany carrying on business at the premises in question filed its written statement denying the averments in the plaint and the claims made therein.
indira sawhney for the appellant.
singh for the respondent.
pg number336 from the judgment and order dated 30.9.1982 of the calcutta high companyrt in suit number 568 of 1979.
the appeal against the high companyrts order was allowed by this companyrt.
the full bench by a majority of two p.k.
numberorders were passed on this application on the ground that the application was out of time.
banerjee and chittatosh mookerjee jj to one ramendra mohan datta acting c.j.
he referred to the observations of b. mukharji j. quoted earlier that their rights were only aspects of the rights of defence and observed it seems to me that if i allow the defendants in this case to cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses on their evidence as to the facts establishing the claim to ejectment and to address the companyrt with regard to that claim i am really allowing the defendants to defend the claim against ejectment.
ajay nath ray surendra dube and mrs.
the companyrectness of the view taken by the majority is contested in this appeal.
section 14 4 says that this the defendants cannumber do.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 173 of 1983.
the appeal arises from the judgment of a full bench of the calcutta high companyrt constituted to resolve a companyflict in the earlier decisions of the same companyrt on this issue.
during the pendency of the suit several interlocutory applications were made from time to time in which orders were passed directing the present appellant hereinafter referred to as the tenant to deposit certain sums in companyrt.
decided that in a matter where the defence against delivery of possession has been struck out under sub section 3 of section 17 of the west bengal premises tenancy act 1956 hereinafter referred to as the act the defendant tenant cannumber cross examine the witnesses called by the plaintiff excepting on the point of numberice under section 13 6 of the said act.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganathan j. a somewhat important question as to the nature and scope of the rights available to a defendant whose defence has been struck out calls for determination in this appeal in the particular companytext of the west bengal premises tenancy act 1956.
k. kapur ranjan deb gangadeb and b.p.
425 order i i rule 21 of the c.p.c.
