Judgment The present petitioner had filed an application U/Sec. 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The present respondents filed their say to the same. During the pendency of the proceedings the present petitioner filed an application Exhibit 29 purportedly U/O 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out the pleadings in para No.4, 5 and 17. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Court has not taken into consideration the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 of the C. P. C. in its true letters and spirit. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 can be invoked if the Court comes to the conclusion that the pleadings prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or if it is otherwise an abuse of process of Court. When notice was given by the respondents to the petitioner, the respondents specifically contended that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act apply. But while filing the say in para 4 and 5 it is contended that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act do not apply. Such a contradictory pleading is vexatious and is not permissible. The learned counsel further contends that in para 17 of its say, the respondents have contended about the good will and the rate of rent. The same is in the nature of counter claim which is not permissible. The learned counsel contends that the Trial Court while passing the order has not at all considered the objection with regard to the pleadings in para 17 of the say. The learned counsel contends that the respondents have to take one particular stand. 3. Mrs. Bhale, the learned counsel holding for Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the petition and submits that the Court has properly considered all the material on record, so also has considered the fact of alternate pleading. The parties would be required to adduce the evidence and then the Court can consider and arrive at conclusion. The learned counsel further contends that the say was filed to the application which does not tantamount to pleadings. So order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable. 4. The parties would be required to adduce the evidence and then the Court can consider and arrive at conclusion. The learned counsel further contends that the say was filed to the application which does not tantamount to pleadings. So order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order, application and say. 5. No doubt, the respondents in the notice have stated about the applicability of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and in the say more particularly in para 4 have pleaded about the non applicability of the said enactment. In para 17 an alternate plea has been raised that if provisions of Bombay Rent Act are held to be applicable, then the respondents have put forth their case. 6. It is trite that a party more particularly a person who is in position of defendant is entitled to raise as many alternate pleas as available. By suggesting that the rate of rent is at a particular rate and suggesting various criterias for valuation of the said quantum of rent. It cannot be said that it is in the nature of counter claim. The bare facts are required to be pleaded. In that light of the matter, I do not feel that any counter claim has been filed. 7. It is for the court on the basis of available material on record to come to the conclusion regarding applicability of a particular act and the quantum of rent. The parties can adduce their evidence. 8. The say filed on record cannot tantamount to scandalous or vexatious pleading or abuse of process of Court, nor it would prejudice the fair trial. 9. In view of the above, no error is committed by the Court while passing the impugned order. As such, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.