Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The plaintiff-applicant is assailing order dated 7 August 2015, passed by the revisional Court/Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No. 1, Meerut, in S.C.C. Revision No. 110 of 2010 (Raman Gupta and others v. Shri Anil Kumar Goel), arising from an order passed by the Small Causes Court at Meerut, in Suit No. 85 of 2007 imposing cost on the applicant upon withdrawal of the suit.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly is, that applicant instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent; respondent-defendant contested by filing written statement and deposited arrears of rent, interest and cost at 41,950/rupees to enable the respondent to claim relief against the eviction in view of Section 20(4) of Act 13 of 1972. During pendency of the suit, applicant preferred an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC withdrawing the entire suit, application was opposed by the respondent/tenant by filing objections, inter alia, contending that respondent had incurred expenses and after withdrawal of arrears of rent deposited, the suit is being withdrawn, therefore, the application should be rejected.

3. The trial Court allowed the application withdrawing the suit but imposed 15,000/ rupees towards cost of litigation, 35,000/ rupees towards mental agony and 41,950/ rupees towards refund of arrears of rent payable to the respondent. Aggrieved, applicant preferred a revision being Revision No. 110 of 2010, revisional Court partly allowed the revision holding that there is no provision in law for grant of cost towards mental agony, arrears of rent withdrawn by the applicant cannot be directed to be refunded as it was deposited unconditionally to avoid eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. It was open to the landlord, in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, to withdraw the suit upon arrears of rent being satisfied. The revisional Court, however, upheld cost of 15,000/rupees towards expenses incurred by the respondent.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the suit was instituted for a cause i.e. for arrears of rent, therefore, the suit not being a false and vexatious claim, compensatory cost should not have been granted by the Court below, at the best, in view of Section 35A CPC, plaintiffs were entitled to pay 3000/ rupees only.

5. The sole question to be determined is as to whether upon the plaintiff unconditionally withdrawing the entire suit, the defendant is entitled to cost and if yes, the principle to determine the quantum thereof.

6. The withdrawal of suit is provided under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC which reads as follows:

(1) Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim—(1) At any time after, the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandons his suit or abandon a part of his claim:

provided......

2.......

3. Where the Court is satisfied-

(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or

(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim.

4. Where the plaintiff-

(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or

(b) withdraw from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.

7. There is no distinction between withdrawing a suit and withdrawing from a suit, when there is only one plaintiff and he withdraws the whole suit it can be said that he withdraws the suit; when there are more than one plaintiff and one