JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision and appeal being based on the identical facts and law, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant respondents (for short the defendants) in the trial Court with the averments that the plaintiff along with defendants No. 2 & 3 took the disputed show-room on rent from the defendant No. 1. A suit for eviction in respect of the said show-room was filed thereafter by the defendant No. 1 against the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 collusively and it was decreed. In view of this the plaintiff prayed that he be declared tenant of defendant No. 1 in the said show-room and the defendant No. 1 be restrained from ousting the plaintiff from the said show-room without due process of law. 3. The defendant No. 1 submitted written statement raising a counter claim seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the said show-room. 4. The plaintiff moved an application u/O. 6 R. 17 of the CPC for striking off the' pleadings in the written statement relating to the eviction of the plaintiff on the ground that the same being unnecessary and vexatious would delay the fair trial of the suit of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide its order dated 2.5.1997. This order has been called in question by the plaintiff in Revision No. 1315 of 1997 and in Misc. Appeal No. 711 of 1997, the plaintiff has assailed the order dated 7.8.1997 whereby the provisional rent under section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, was determined. 5. Before adverting to the rival contentions it is necessary to understand as to what the 'counter-claim' is in its legal sense. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, for the first time introduced 'counter-claim' by inserting R. 6-A in 0. 8 of the CPC. Order 8 R. 6-A speaks of a 'counter-claim' as a plaint in one place and as a cross-claim in another place. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, for the first time introduced 'counter-claim' by inserting R. 6-A in 0. 8 of the CPC. Order 8 R. 6-A speaks of a 'counter-claim' as a plaint in one place and as a cross-claim in another place. Under sub-rule (1) of R. 6-A the defendant may set up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence has expired. But under the proviso the counter-claim must not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. Under sub-rule (2) the counter claim has the effect of a cross suit and the Court can pronounce a final judgment both on the original claim and the counter claim. The plaintiff has the right to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim under sub-rule (3) and under sub-rule (4) the counter claim is treated as a plaint and is governed by the rules applicable to a plaint. Rule 6-B of 0.8 provides that in the written statement the statement is to be specifically made by the defendant that the grounds mentioned in the written statement are in support of the counter claim. 6. However, a counter-claim can be excluded under R. 6-C, where the Court finds that it is embarrassing, or the filing of the counter claim is not fair to the plaintiff or where it is likely to create complications and prolong the trial. Rule 6-C of 0. 8 provides thus : "6-C Exclusion of counter-claim-where a defendant sets up a counter claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter claim may be excluded and the Court may on hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit." 7. Mr. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff vehemently urged that the counter-claim was raised by the dependent No. 1 with the object of prolonging the trial of the suit instituted by the plaintiff therefore the pleadings in respect of counter claim ought to have been struck off by the learned trial Court as the same were unnecessary and vexatious. 8. On the other hand, Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 submitted that in view of provisions contained in R. 6-A of O. 8, the defendant No. 1 within his right to raise counter-claim and the said counter-claim may be treated as independent suit. Reliance was placed on Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2222 . 9. After giving my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that provisions contained in O. 6 R. 16 CPC are not attracted in the instant cases. The pleadings of the defendant No. 1 raised by way of counter claim can not be struck off u/O.6 R. 16 nevertheless the same can be excluded u/O.8 R. 6-C. Therefore, I proceed to examine the application of the plaintiff in the light of provisions contained in R. 6-C of 0. 8. 10. In Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions contained in O. 8 R. 6-C propounded that: "In a suit for injunction, counter-claim for injunction in respect of the same or a different property is maintainable. A defendant can claim any right by way of a counter-claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit." But where the defendant No. 1 raised a counter-claim seeking eviction of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction instituted by the plaintiff, it is to be seen as to whether such a counter-claim can be raised. 11. In Manik Lal Seal & Anr. v. K.P. Chowdary, AIR 1976 Cal. 11. In Manik Lal Seal & Anr. v. K.P. Chowdary, AIR 1976 Cal. 115 it was observed that in a suit for eviction against a tenant on the allegation that the latter was a monthly tenant-at-will and that the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for eviction, any counter-claim by the defendant for specific performance of contract to execute a lease against the plaintiff cannot be maintained. 12. Though their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jag Mohan Chawla's case (supra) interpreted the provisions contained in O. 8 R. 6-C but provisions u/O.8 R. 6-A and 6- F as well as O. 20 R. 19 CPC could not be considered as they were not placed before their Lordships. 13. Rule 6-F of Order, reads as follows: "6F. Relief to defendant where counter-claim succeeds.-Where in any suit a set off or counter-claim is established as a defence against the plaintiff's claim, and any balance is found due to the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, the Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance." From R. 6-F it is apparent that counter-claim must relate to a monitory claim because the Court has been vested with the power to pass a judgment and finding in respect of balance found due to the defendant. 14. Rule 19(1) of O. 20, is as follows : "19. Decree when set off (or counter claim) is allowed.-(1) Where the defendant has been allowed a set off (or counter claim) against the claim of the plaintiff, the decree shall state what amount is due to the plaintiff and what amount is due to the defendant, and shall be for the recovery of any sum which appears to be due to either party." 15. In view of the amended R. 19(1), which is the provision regarding preparation of decree in respect of suits where counter-claim has been allowed by the Court, it is clear that in the decree what amount is due to the defendant has to be stated. After examining the provisions contained in 0. 8 R. 6-A and 6-F and 0. 20 R. 19 as introduced by the Amendment Act, 1976, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Jaswant Singh v. Darshan Kaur & Ors., AIR 1983 Patna 132 , observed that the right of the defendant to raise counter-claim u/R. 6-A of 0. After examining the provisions contained in 0. 8 R. 6-A and 6-F and 0. 20 R. 19 as introduced by the Amendment Act, 1976, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Jaswant Singh v. Darshan Kaur & Ors., AIR 1983 Patna 132 , observed that the right of the defendant to raise counter-claim u/R. 6-A of 0. 8 has been limited by the Code only to the cases where the dispute is in respect of a money claim. Rule 6-A simply enables a defendant to set up by way of a counter-claim "any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff". It cannot be said that in view of R. 6-A, a defendant is at liberty to raise any dispute in the suit of the plaintiff irrespective of the nature. The provisions under the amended R. 6-F of 0.8 and R. 19 of 0. 20 make it clear that counter claim under the rules aforesaid can be made only in such suits in which there is dispute in respect of money claim. 16. It was therefore held that in a suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff for declaration that he was the licensee of the premises in question and has a right to remain in possession thereof for the period mentioned in the plaint; it was not open to the defendant to make a prayer for eviction of the plaintiff by way of a counter claim. The order of the Munsiff allowing the defendant to make a counter-claim against the plaintiff and to pray for a decree for eviction of the plaintiff in the suit which had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff amounted to an exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and was liable to be set aside. (Emphasis added) 17. In view of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jag Mohan Chawla's case (supra) it is not necessary for me to express my opinion on the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Jaswant Singh's case (supra) so far as it relates to the observations that provisions contained in U. 8 R. 6 are related to monitory claims only. But so far as observations related to the fact that the defendant cannot raise counter claim against the plaintiff seeking eviction of the plaintiff, I subscribe the view expressed by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court and observe that no counter-claim can be raised by the defendant seeking eviction of the plaintiff in a suit instituted by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. As already stated by me in the foregoing paras of the judgment that a counter claim can be excluded u/R. 6-C, where the Court finds that it is embarrassing, or the filing of the counter is not fair to the plaintiff or where it is likely to create complications and prolong the trial and in the instant case the counter-claim has been raised by the defendant No. I seeking eviction of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff. Under the Rent Control Act, in a suit for eviction the trial Court has to pass various orders at various stages and in a suit for eviction, relief of declaration and permanent injunction cannot be fairly granted and it is likely to create confusions and can prolong the trial. Therefore filing of counter claim in respect of eviction of property cannot be said to be fair to the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of this case and it was incumbent upon the trial Court to exclude the counter-claim raised by the defendant No. 1 the instant case. (Emphasis supplied) 18. The learned Court below has passed the impugned order without even looking to the provisions contained in R. 6-C of O. 8. Undoubtedly that the applications u/0.6 R. 16 CPC was not maintainable but when a prayer was made by the plaintiff for striking off the pleadings in respect of the counter-claim, the learned trial Court was duty bound to examine the matter in view of the relevant legal provisions. 19. I am also of the view that the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Jaswant Singh's case (supra) requires serious consideration and provisions contained in 0. 8 R. 6-A & 6-F along with O.20 R. 19 CPC ought to have been examined simultaneously. 20. 19. I am also of the view that the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Jaswant Singh's case (supra) requires serious consideration and provisions contained in 0. 8 R. 6-A & 6-F along with O.20 R. 19 CPC ought to have been examined simultaneously. 20. In view of the discussions made here in above, the order of the learned Court below allowing the defendant No. 1 to raise counter-claim in respect of eviction and in dismissing the application of the plaintiff, suffers from jurisdictional error and if the order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice. Thus the court below has committed illegality in determining the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Rent Control Act and the order impugned in Appeal No. 771 of 1997 also deserves to be set aside. 21. Consequently, I allow the instant revision and appeal and set aside the orders dated 2.5.1997 and 7.8.1997 passed by the court below and direct that the counter-claim raised by the defendant No. 1 seeking eviction of the plaintiff shall be excluded. The defendant No. 1 is directed to amend the written statement accordingly. Costs easy.Revision Allowed. *******