RANCHOD Vs. DASHRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision the question involved is a simple one. A suit was brought by opponent Dashrath against the applicant Ranchod for ejectment on the basis of genuine necessity and arrears of rent. The defendant-applicant contested the suit. In addition to the other pleas he stated that he himself was the landlord. He further stated that for the house he had spent about rs. 23765 for making improvements. He therefore claimed that if any decree for ejectment has been passed against him the possession should not be given unless the amount was paid to him by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed an application that the defendant be ordered to delete his claim of ownership and also his claim that the decree can be passed on condition of making payment of Rs. 23765.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties the Court ordered that either the defendant should strike out additional pleas in paras. 1, 2, 3 and 5 or pay court-fee on rs. 23765 plus market value of the house before the improvements were made. Against this order the defendant has now come up in revision stating that the court had no jurisdiction to ask him to pay the court-fee because his is neither a counter-claim nor a set-off. Therefore the court-fee is not necessary.