S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—This is a revision petition against the order dated 31.7.1985 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, deleting Issue No. 6 and rejecting the application of the defendant petitioner under section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The non petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of material alteration and nuisance. It has been further alleged that the agreed rent was Rs. 750/- per month. 3. In the written statement, the defendant-petitioner admitted the tenancy and also admitted that the rent was agreed to be Rs 750/- per month. In the additional pleas, it was submitted that the rent of Rs. 750/- was in excess. The previous tenant was paying Rs. 425/- per month and the standard rent of the suit premises could not be more than Rs. 425/- per month and therefore, the defendant was liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 425/- per month being the standard rent and he paid a court fee of Rs. 10/- and also prayed in the written statement that the standard rent @ Rs 425/- per month may be fixed. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder and also denied the claim of the defendant-petitioner for standard rent. The trial court framed Issue No. 6 as under: ^^vk;k izfroknh fooknLin ifjlj dk ekudg fdjk;k fu/kkZfjr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gkW rks fdl nj ls\** 4. On 23-2-85, the defendant-petitioner filed an application u/s 7 of the Act, praying that the provisional rent be fixed at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month. The trial court while disposing of this application held that since the plaintiff had not claimed ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent, the defendant petitioner could not ask for the fixation of standard rent or for fixing provisional rent, and rejected the said application vide order dated 31-7-85, and while disposing of the said application, it also struck of Issue No 6 on the ground that the defendant cannot raise such a plea. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 5. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in view of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, the petitioner is entitled to plead counter claim and has placed reliance on M/s Daga Films vs. Lotus Production (I) and also Vishwanath vs. Allahabad Bank (2) He has further placed reliance on Central Bank of India vs. Govind Narain (3) wherein a Division Bench of this court has held that in a suit by landlord for areas of rent, the tenant can plead that the agreement is enforceable and it is not necessary for the tenant to file a separate suit for fixation of standard rent but he can take up this plea in the written statement. He has also placed reliance on Hari Ram vs. Rajinder Singh (4) wherein Delhi High Court has also held that a tenant can pray for fixation of standard rent in written statement irrespective of the fact that the suit for ejectment is not based on the ground of default. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has also very vehemently argued that the revision petition is not maintainable against the order rejecting the application u/s 7 of the Act as an appeal is provided u/s 22 of the Act. He has placed reliance on Laxmidas vs. Nana Bhai (5) wherein the Supreme Court has held that the right to make a counter claim is statutory right and a counter claim is not admissible in a case which is admittedly not within the scope of Order 8 Rule 6 CPC. The Supreme Court has further held in that case that if the relief prayed for by the plaintiff is not one for rendition of accounts there is no question of a defendant claiming benefit of that relief in the same suit. The benefit can be claimed only in those cases where the relief sought is common to the parties, though arrayed on either side. He has further submitted that the Delhi High Court in Hari Rams case (supra) has placed reliance on M.M. Chawla vs. J.S. Sethi (6) wherein the Supreme Court had rejected the appellants plea that the Rent Controller was bound to fix the standard rent when the tenant asked for its fixation in his written statement. He has further submitted that the Delhi High Court in Hari Rams case (supra) has placed reliance on M.M. Chawla vs. J.S. Sethi (6) wherein the Supreme Court had rejected the appellants plea that the Rent Controller was bound to fix the standard rent when the tenant asked for its fixation in his written statement. He has also brought to my notice Manick Lal vs. K P. Choudhary (7) wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that in a suit for eviction against the tenant with the allegation that the latter was a tenant and the plaintiff was entitled to the decree for eviction, any counter claim by the defendant for specific performance of contract against the plaintiff cannot be maintained. He also placed reliance on AIR 1979 NOC 89 of Calcutta High Court wherein it was observed that the counter claim in law normally is a claim which a party defendant or opponent claims in excess of the claim of the suitor. It has been submitted that since the suit for ejectment was not based on the ground of default, it was not open for the defendant-petitioner to set up a counter claim for fixation of standard rent and the trial court was justi5ed in rejecting the said application. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments and also have gone through the various authorities cited at the bar and given the whole matter a serious thought. Order 8 Rule 6A CPC was inserted by C.P.C. Amending Act, 1976 and prior to that, there was only Order 8 Rule 6 CPC and after addition of Rule 6A, the scope of Order 8 Rule 6 CPC has been enlarged. Counter-claim has not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code but the counter claim as given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is as under; "......a claim/set off against another or against the plaintiff". 8. Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC confers on the defendant a statutory right to file a counter claim in addition to set off which was permissible under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC. The effect of counter claim is to place the plaintiff in the position of the defendant and the plaintiff in rejoinder has a right to meet the counter claim set off by the defendant. The effect of counter claim is to place the plaintiff in the position of the defendant and the plaintiff in rejoinder has a right to meet the counter claim set off by the defendant. The intention of the legislature in enacting Rules 6-A to 6-G seems to avoid multiplicity of suits and when the parties are likely to be the same in the counter claim also, the witnesses are also likely to be the same. If the defendant is permitted to set up his counter claim it would naturally shorten the litigation and aviod multiplicity of suits. No doubt, the defendant tenant can file suit for fixation of standard rent independently and it has to implead the landlord plaintiff and therefore, in my opinion, after the addition of Rule 6A CPC, the defendant is entitled to set up counter claim of standard rent in a suit for ejectment irrespective of the fact whether the ejectment is sought on the ground of default or not. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the non-AIR petitioner 1964 SC 11,1976 Cal. 115 and AIR 1970 (2) SCR 390 are prior to the amendment of 1976 and therefore, does not help us in deciding this revision petition. 9. The impugned order is composite one rejecting the application u/s 7 of the Act as also striking out Issue No. 6 It cannot be disputed that a revision petition lies against striking out Issue No. 6 and therefore I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the revision is not maintainable as an appeal lies u/s 22 of the Act against an order rejecting the application u/s 7 of the Act. 10. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the trial court dated 31 7.85 and direct the trial court to hear the application u/s 7 of the Act filed by the petitioner, on merits in accordance with law and also to try Issue No. 6 along with other Issues in the main case.