PRABHA MANCHANDA Vs. KAWALJIT KAPOOR @ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises an interesting question i.e. whether in a suit filed by the plaintiff/revisionist wherein notice under Section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 has been called into question, the counter claim seeking possession and recovery of mesne profits is barred under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The case of the plaintiff/revisionist is this. The appellant was inducted as a tenant in respect of the premises in dispute at a rental of Rs.3,500/ - per month. The original landlord expired on 14.01.1993 leaving behind legal representatives. Smt. Kawaljit Kapoor, the defendant, claims to be one of his legal representatives. Vide notice dated 18.05.2006, she asked the appellant to increase the rent w.e.f. 08th July, 2006 by 10%. Thereafter, the suit for declaration was filed by the revisionist with the following prayers:

(2.) THE appellant filed written statement as well as also filed counter claim dated 16.11.2006 wherein the defendant claimed possession and recovery of mesne profit.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the suit filed by the respondent is premature. He explained that counter claim is a separate case which does not lie until or unless the questions raised by the appellant are finally adjudicated by the concerned court. It was explained that the first of all the court will decide whether the notice issued by the respondent is valid on the reasons detailed in the suit. He opined that the cause of action would arise in favor of the respondent only when the court decides that the appellant is liable to pay 10% increase in enhancement. In order to fortify his argument he has cited following few authorities.