Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

1. This Civil Revision application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. What is the scope of Rule 6-A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was introduced by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, is the issue involved in this application.

2. The petitioner had filed the title suit in question for a declaration that he has a right to remain over the suit property as a licensee for a period of five years commencing from 29.9.1980 and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-opposite party from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was a month to month tenant of the suit property, later, there was some dispute and ultimately it was agreed that the petitioner shall continue in possession of the same for a period of five years after which he shall vacate the premises in question. According to the petitioner, during the continuance of the said period, the opposite party interfered with the possession of the petitioner which necessitated the filing of the suit in question.

3. The defendant-opposite party appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement disputing any agreement as aforesaid. According to them, the petitioner was a trespasser, and, as such liable to be evicted. A prayer was made to treat the said written statement as a counter claim within the meaning of Rule 6A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code). Advalorem Court fees was also paid by the defendants-opposite-party for decree of their counter-claim.

4. The petitioner objected to the said prayer of the opposite party that the written statement should be entertained as a counter-claim for eviction of the petitioner saying that any such claim was not maintainable in the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Learned Munsif, however, by the impugned order has held that after the introduction of Rule 6A in Order 8 of the Code, the opposite patty were entitled to make a counter-claim against the petitioner and to pray for a decree for eviction of the petitioner in the suit which had been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Rule 6 of Order 8 of the Code enables a defendant to plead set off, whenever a suit for recovery of money has been filed against such defendant. In view of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 any such written statement in which a setoff has been pleaded, shall have the same effect as a plaint in a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in respect of the original claim and of the set-off. By amendment Rule 6A to 6G have been introduced in Order 8. The relevant portion of Rule 6A(1) is as follows:

6A (1). A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action according to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in his nature of a claim for damages or not:

Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

Sub-rules (2) to (4) of Rule 6A contain provisions saying that such counterclaim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit, and Court can pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. In such cases the plaintiff is at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim.

7. There cannot be any dispute that by introduction of new Rule 6A, the right of a defendant to make a counter-claim against the plaintiff in the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff has been enlarged and it purports to cover cases which could not have been covered by the original Rule 6. The expressions set-off or counter-cla