MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge No. 1 Jodhpur dated November 14, 1990 by which he did not permit the defendant petitioners to produce their evidence in rebuttal. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff -non -petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the grounds of defaults in payment of rent and bona fide necessity. The defendant -petitioners committed deaults in payment of rent and as such their defence was struck out by order dated April 15, 1989. The plaintiff produced her evidence and the defendants duly cross -examined her witnesses. The defendants have not been permitted to produce their evidence on the ground that their defence had stood struck out by the order dated April 15,1989.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant -petitioner that issue No. 4 has been framed to the effect that whether a part of the demised land measuring 13' x 27' is owned by Omar Khan (third person) and, if so, to what effect on the suit, the defendants want to produce their evidence on this issue and it is not covered under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. He relied upon 1987 (2) WLN 268. In reply it is contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff -non petitioner that it is well settled law that in a suit for rent and ejectment the question of title is foreign and the issue No. 4 is not necessary for the decision of the suit. He further contended that the defendants are not at all entitled to lead any evidence after their defence was struck out. He relied upon AIR 1989 SC 162 para 11.;