The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 in determining the maintainability of counter claims for seeking possession of a property.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Vide this common judgment, both the above-mentioned revision petitions are being decided together because these have arisen out of the single order dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure P-1 in both the petitions) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala (for short 'the trial Court') whereby the applications (Annexure P-7 in both the petitions) moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiffs') for seeking the dismissal or in the alternative, the rejection of the counter claims filed by the respondents-defendants (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendants') separately, have been dismissed.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts culminating in the filing of both the present revision petitions, are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants for seeking a decree for permanent injunction for restraining them (defendants) and their agents etc from interfering in their (plaintiffs') possession over the suit property, i.e the Ground Floor portion of SCF Nos.33 & 34, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala and from forcibly dispossessing them from the same, while averring that they (plaintiffs) had taken the said property on lease for running their business. The defendants filed their written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs therein on various grounds. They filed their separate counter claims also for seeking the possession of the suit property on the ground that the plaintiffs were in the arrears of lease money since March, 2020. Then, the plaintiffs moved two applications (Annexure P-7 in both the petitions) for seeking the dismissal or in the alternative, the rejection of the said counter claims and these applications have been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order Annexure P-1.

3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties in these revision petitions and have also perused the files carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (petitioners) has contended that the defendants had leased out the suit property to the plaintiffs for a period of six (06) years, vide two separate lease deeds dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P-2 in both the petitions) and on being threatened by them (defendants) qua their dispossession from the same forcibly, the plaintiffs filed the said suit for seeking a decree for permanent injunction and the counter claims, as preferred by both the defendants therein, are not legally maintainable because the suit property falls within the urban area and hence, the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act of 1995') are applicable to the same and it being so, the appropriate remedy that can be available with the defendants to seek the possession of the suit property, is to invoke the relevant provisions of the Act of 1995 for seeking their (plaintiffs') ejectment from the same and therefore, the afore-said counter claims are liable to be dismissed or in the alternative, to be rejected. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar vs. Smt Rudravva 2001(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 323.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the counter claims preferred by both the defendants, are perfectly maintainable because the suit property had been leased out to the plaintiffs and in the eventuality of the breach of the terms and conditions, as laid down in the said lease deeds, by them (plaintiffs) by way of non-payment of the lease money since March, 2020, the defendants are not required to file any eviction petition against them under the provisions of the Act of 1995 for seeking the possession of the suit property. He has placed reliance upon Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, in support of his arguments.

6. It would be relevant and necessary to point it out here that though the above-said lease deeds are stated to have been executed for leasin