Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurbir Singh, J.
Dalbara Singh – Appellant
Versus
Malkiat Singh & Anr. – Respondents
CR No. 1470 of 2024
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Counter-Claim - Tenancy Dispute - CPC Order 8 Rule 6 - The court upheld the validity of a counter-claim in a tenancy dispute, interpreting CPC provisions to allow claims based on independent causes of action within the same suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, claiming illegal interference in his possession of a workshop rented from them. The respondents countered with a claim of possession, asserting the petitioner was a licensee, not a tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the counter-claim was maintainable as it involved the same parties and property, and that the issues raised were triable, thus upholding the trial court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application to exclude the counter-claim.
Issues: Whether the counter-claim filed by the respondents should be excluded from the suit based on the nature of the tenancy and the maintainability of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a counter-claim can be based on a separate cause of action and does not need to be excluded if it involves the same parties and subject matter, as established in prior case law.
Result: The revision petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Gurbir Singh, J.
Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 16.02.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha (for brevity – Trial Court), whereby application dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-5) under Order 8 Rule 6(C) CPC, filed by the petitioner, for exclusion of counter-claim filed by the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from dispossessing the petitioner illegally or forcibly or causing any type of interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over tenanted premises of workshop, as detailed in the head note of the plaint on the ground that petitioner had taken a workshop on rent from the respondents w.e.f. 01.07.2022. A rent note dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) was also executed between the parties. Monthly rent was agreed @ Rs.50,000/-. Advanced cheques for payment of rent w.e.f. 01.07.2022 to 31.05.2023 (for 11 months) were handed over to the respondents. Despite payment of rent in advance through the said cheques, respondents started interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner by threatening him to vacate the premises or enhance the rent. So, the petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-2).
3. Respondents contested the suit by filing written statement (Annexure P-3) along with a counter-claim. In the written statement, factum of tenancy was denied. They took a stand that the demised premises was given to the petitioner on license. In the counter-claim, respondents sought possession of the workshop in question and also recovery of damages.
4. Faced with this situation, petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-4) under Order 8 Rule 6(C) CPC for exclusion of counter-claim filed by the respondents on the ground that the same is not maintainable and is barred under the law as the respondents should file separate suit for any alleged cause of action accrued in their favour. Respondents filed reply (Annexure P-5) to the said application. Learned Trial Court, after considering pleadings of both the parties, dismissed the application, which led to the filing of present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the license is always without consideration but the case of the respondents is that it was given for consideration. There is rent note dated 28.06.2022 with regard to possession of tenancy. The landlord cannot wriggle out of it. The counter-claim for possession of demised premises is not maintainable and same should be excluded from the suit.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the paper book.
7. The petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner illegally or forcibly or causing any type of interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over tenanted premises of workshop, on the ground that he is in possession of the suit property as tenant w.e.f. 01.07.2022 as per rent note dated 28.06.2022 @ Rs.50,000/- per month. He was regularly paying the rent.
8. The respondents filed written statement along with counter-claim on the ground that the said workshop was given to the petitioner as licensee on a license of Rs.50,000/- per month and license agreement was with effect from 01.07.2022 to 31.05.2023, but the petitioner, with mala fide intention, got executed “Karaya-nama” from the respondents. The petitioner has no right to retain the possession after 31.05.2023 as the license was not renewed. As per the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC, a defendant may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up by way of counter-claim against the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a
A counter-claim can be maintained in a suit even if it arises from a separate cause of action, provided it involves the same parties and subject matter.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for filing a counter claim before the written statement or before the time provided for filing written statement has expired, as pe....
A counter-claim related to a licensee's possession falls under the jurisdiction of the relevant authority, not a civil court, as it necessitates a substantive evaluation of the agreement's terms.
The main legal point established is that a second appeal only lies on a substantial question of law, and the Court cannot reanalyze or reappreciate evidence in a second appeal.
The court affirmed that counter claims can be filed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, even after the written statement, as long as they comply with legal principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
