BHANWAR LAL Vs. CHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the learned trial court, whereby, his application under Order VIII, Rule 6C CPC for exclusion of counter claim filed by the defendant has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit on 01.11.2001 for possession of a shop situated at village Sindhari, Barmer and arrears of rent against the respondent inter alia with the averments that the shop was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.200.00 in the month of January, 1986. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant agreed to purchase the suit shop for a sum of Rs.51,000.00 on 24.02.1996 and agreed to pay the consideration within a period of three months and also agreed to pay rent @ Rs.500.00 per month for the period of three months. Neither the rent was paid nor the amount of consideration was paid. It was then alleged that on 26.04.1996 the defendant called plaintiff and stated that he could not arrange for the amount of consideration and that he would pay him Rs.60,000.00 within a period of 30 months and, till such time the payment was made, he would pay him Rs.500.00 as rent. A memorandum (hand note) in this regard was executed by the respondent. The respondent has not paid rent for last three years and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to claim the arrears of rent and obtain the vacant possession of the shop in question. It is claimed that by notice dated 05.10.2001 the arrears of rent were demanded and the tenancy of the respondent was terminated. Despite notice, neither the possession has been handed over nor the arrears of rent has been paid, no reply to the notice has been given. It was also averred in the plaint that as the defendant has not paid the consideration of Rs.60,000.00, therefore, now he is not entitled to get the sale deed executed i.e. the right to get sale deed executed has come to an end. It was also alleged that the defendant started raising construction on the first floor, for which, the plaintiff gave telegram to stop the same. However, the illegal construction has not been removed. Importantly it was claimed in the plaint that defendant No.2 has been impleaded party as the disputed shop has been purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No.2 in the year 1984 and thereafter he has raised construction and has let it out to the respondent. The sale could not be executed, but as the respondent has taken possession of the suit property as tenant, therefore, the plaintiff has the right to file the suit. Ultimately, it was prayed that the possession of the shop be handed over to the plaintiff, decree for arrears of rent be passed and further Rs.500.00 per month be awarded for use and occupation till the possession of the shop is handed over to the plaintiff. The construction raised by the defendant be ordered to be removed by passing mandatory injunction.

(3.) ON filing of the said written statement alongwith counter claim, the petitioner filed application under Oder VIII, Rule 6C CPC. In the said application petitioner made reference to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., statement in a criminal case and compromise executed by the defendant, wherein, it was admitted by the defendant that the shop was on rent with him. It was claimed that the defendant by taking plea of sale and specific performance of the contract just want to drag the litigation and without prejudice to the said submission, the above objection has become time barred. It was also claimed that the counter claim is maintainable only in a case of money suit. Ultimately, it was prayed that the counter claim be excluded. The said application was opposed by the respondent No.1 and it was prayed that the application be rejected.