MD LDRIS Vs. OM PRAKASH FITKARIBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision by the defendant is directed against order dated 6.4.99 in Title Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1994 rejecting his application to decide his counter claim in terms of Order 8, Rule 6A of Civil Procedure Code (in short the Code ').

(2.) THE plaintiffs -opposite party have filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity in terms of section 11(1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short the 'BBC Act '). In view of the point involved in this revision it is not necessary to set out the plaintiffs ' case. The defendant in his written statement, which he filed after obtaining leave to contest as required under section 14(4) of the BBC Act, did not dispute the landlord - tenant relationship. He, however, denied the plaintiffs ' case of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises and also took a plea that he had paid sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as security deposit and spent sum of Rs.4000/ -, in getting a shutter installed in the premlses on the plaintiff 'sassurance that the amount would be adjusted against future rent. But this was not done despite several requests. The defendant filed a separate application to decide the counter claim unded Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code. By the order dated 2.8.95 the court below refused to entertain the counter claim on the ground that such claim could be claimed only in a money suit. The defendant preferred C.R.No. 1333. of 1995 in this Court which was dismissed. He filed a fresh application on 1.7.96 making similar prayer on the strength of subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh V/s. Bhag Singh, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1087. On the ground that similar prayer had been rejected earlier which was confirmed by the High Court, the court below by the impugned order rejected the application on 6.4.99.

(3.) BEFORE noticing the facts of the cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and the ratio of the decisions, it would be proper to quote Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code, so far as relevant, as under: '' -