I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By instituting a suit, which gave rise to Title Suit No. 21/2003, the present Petitioners' predecessor-in-interest sought for a declaration of his status as a tenant of the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit premises, for confirmation of his possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his (Plaintiff's) possession of the suit premises. The opposite party herein, who were the Defendants in the said suit, resisted the suit, wherein, apart from denying the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and the Defendant No. 1, it was claimed that the Plaintiff was a licencee of the Defendant No. 1, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 being tenants of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 also sought for eviction of the Plaintiff (the present Petitioners' predecessor-in-interest) from the suit premises. The suit and also the counter-claim, which was treated as cross-suit, were accordingly proceeded with.

2. In course of time, both the parties adduced their evidence. By judgment and order, dated 8-8-2006, the suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, but the counter-claim was decreed holding the Plaintiff (i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners) as a licencee of the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit premises and also for his eviction therefrom. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, an appeal was preferred, which gave rise to Title Appeal No. 53/2006. By judgment and order, dated 25-11-2009, as the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, has dismissed the appeal, the Petitioners have come to this Court seeking, with the help of this revision petition, appropriate order setting aside the judgment and order impugned in this revision.

3. I have heard Ms. S. Senapati, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioners, and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Defendants-opposite party.

4. It has been contended by Ms. Senapati, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioners, that in the case at hand, when the Plaintiff's suit was for declaration of his status as tenant of the Defendant No. 1, in respect of the suit premises, the counter-allegations, made by the Defendant No. 1, - that the Plaintiff was a licencee and not a tenant under the Defendant No. 1 and when the Defendant No. 1, had asked the Plaintiff to vacate the suit premises, the Plaintiff's licence stood terminated and the Plaintiff ought to have vacated the suit premises and as the Plaintiff had failed to vacate the suit premises, he was liable to be evicted therefrom - ought not to have been treated as a counterclaim in the suit inasmuch as the subject-matter of the suit and the subject-matter of the counter-claim, which the Defendant No. 1 had made, were wholly distinct and different from each other.

5. It is further submitted by Ms. Senapati, learned Counsel, that the finding reached by the learned Courts below, to the effect that the Defendant was a licencee and not a tenant, is perverse inasmuch as the evidence on record, apart from proving the case of the Plaintiff that he was a tenant, belies the Defendants' plea that the Plaintiff was a licencee and not a tenant.

6. Resisting the revision, Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Defendants-opposite party, submits that under the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code'), a counter-claim, which Order VIII, Rule 6A introduces, need not necessarily remain confined to the subject-matter of the suit and that the subject-matter of a suit and the counterclaim, made therein, may be wholly distinct and different from each other, the only limitation being that the counter-claim must find its mention in the written statement and must be filed before the date for filing of the written statement expires. Support for the submission, so made, is sought to be derived by Mr. Goswami from the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Bhag Sin