JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking setting aside of order dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure P8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram vide which application (Annexure P6) filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint in Civil Suit No.2310/2021 titled as "Ashok Wadhwa and Another v. M/s SKRD Vet Pvt. Ltd." has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in pet-healthcare services and is running pet-clinic in shop/office premises No.DG- 51, Ground Floor, Rodeo Drive, Arcadia-II, South City-2, Sector 49, Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner had taken the said premises on lease from the respondent No.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.35,000/- vide three-year Lease Deed dated 06.10.2018.

3. As the petitioner found the abovesaid premises insufficient for the clinic, he signed another three-year Lease Deed dated 09.10.2018 with respondent No.2 herein for taking on lease adjoining office/space premises No.DG-50, Ground Floor, Rodeo Drive, Arcadia-II, South City-2, Sector 49, Gurugram, Haryana on a monthly lease rent of Rs.20,000/- (both shops No. 50 and 51 are hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises"). It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the petitioner invested almost Rs.20-25 lakh for setting up infrastructure and medical equipment in the aforesaid premises to start functioning of his clinic. However, it is stated that the petitioner started facing infrastructural problems soon thereafter as there was no proper drainage and he faced water problems also. It is submitted that the petitioner informed the respondents about these problems telephonically several times, however, the respondents did nothing about the same and only gave false assurances.

4. It is further stated that due to water and drainage problems in the clinic, there was constant smell of sewerage which made the visitors to the clinic very uncomfortable and therefore, work of the petitioner also suffered though he kept on paying the lease amount to the respondents. It has been stated that despite Covid-19 pandemic, he kept on paying the rent, however, on 02.02.2020, the petitioner telephonically informed the respondents that he was suffering due to poor infrastructure, water and drainage problems in the demised premises which had not been rectified despite frequent requests and therefore, he was not able to pay further rent and maintenance charges till the said problems were resolved. It has further been stated on behalf of the petitioner that he was unable to vacate the demised premises despite the problems as he had spent a lot of money to set up the clinic and invested a lot of money in maintenance and upkeep of the demised premises.

5. On 27.03.2021, the petitioner also sent a legal notice to the respondents calling upon them to rectify the problems in said premises so that he could restart the clinic operations and restart payment of monthly rentals.

6. However, on 22.06.2021, both the respondents herein filed one Suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent along with consequential relief under Order 39, Rule 2 CPC against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P6) under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of misjoinder of parties, cause of action, and jurisdiction. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the respondents