¶1The action is to recover for the use and occupation of certain premises by the defendant as plaintiffs’ tenant.
¶2The defendant, in his answer, admitted the use and occupation of the premises, but denied the other allegations of the complaint, evidently intending to put in issue the fact of tenancy.
¶3He then pleaded, by way of counterclaim, that the plaintiffs entered into a contract with him whereby they agreed to convey to him the property in question on certain terms and conditions, and demanded; by way of relief, tliat the court decree specific performance of the contract.
¶4Plaintiffs demurred to this on the ground that the court had not jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed.
¶5The court below overruled the demurrer and granted an interlocutory judgment against plaintiff for the relief demanded, to wit, that the plaintiffs execute and deliver to the defendant a good and sufficient deed for the conveyance of the premises described in the complaint, etc. This the court had no power to do.
¶6The Oity Court has no equity jurisdiction, and, while equitable defenses may be interposed, they are permitted for *638defensive, not affirmative purposes. Rodgers v. Earle, 5 Misc. Rep. 164.
¶7The denial in the answer sufficiently raised the issue of tenancy, and the relief demanded was of that affirmative character which a court of equity alone could grant.
¶8It follows that the interlocutory judgment must be reversed and the demurrer sustained, with costs.
¶9Newburger, J., concurs.
¶10Interlocutory judgment reversed and demurrer sustained, with costs.