ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi made on January 8, 1996 in C.M. No. 3825/95 in C.R. No. 723/95.

3. The admitted position is that the appellant had enjoyed the demised property pursuant to lease dated December 21, 1990 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-. The respondent had terminated the tenancy on March 15, 1993 and filed the suit No. 133/1993 for possession. He valued the suit at Rs. 72,000/- on yearly rent. Respondent No. 1 filed an application to amend the plaint to recover damages for the use and occupation. On that basis, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court was beyond its jurisdiction and accordingly plaint was returned for presentation to proper Court. On revision, the High Court directed to return it to the District Court with a direction that the matter would be taken up by the District Court and proceeded with from the stage at which it was returned.

4. In the first instance, it was contended that the appellant also has counter claim for the improvement effected on the building and, therefore,without giving an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence in this regard