OPINION
This is an appeal from an order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to a cоunterclaim. The counterclaim was filed by a tenant in response to her landlord’s action for aсcelerated rent which became due when the tenant vacated the apartment prematurely.
Gloria Passen was tenant and Rittenhouse Regency Affiliates, a limited partnership, was lessor under thе terms of a written apartment lease having a term of two years. The tenant discontinued the payment of rent when she vacated the apartment at the end of the first year. The lessor thereupon commenced an action in assumpsit to recover the balance of rent due under the terms of the lease. The *615 tenant responded by filing a counterclaim. After preliminary objections thereto hаd been sustained, the tenant filed an amended counterclaim. She alleged therein that the lessor had failed to return a rental deposit. She also alleged that the lessor had intentionally inflicted emotional distress by refusing to abide by an oral agreement to accept an alternate tenant if one were found by appellant-lessee. For breach of this oral agreement, Passen demanded compensatory and punitive damages.
The trial court properly observed that a tenant сannot maintain a cause of action for punitive damages or for compensatory damages because of emotional distress allegedly caused by a lessor’s failure to abide by the terms of an oral agreement. As a general rule, punitive damages are not recoverable in an аction for breach of contract.
Reliance Universal, Inc. of Ohio v. Ernest Renda Contracting Co.,
The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1) (1965) provides that “[o]ne who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress. . . .”
Id.
Although it is recоgnized that in certain cases a breach of contract can be tortious,
Fair v. Negley,
The tenant averred in the instant counterclaim that the lessor had refused to lease the apartment to prospective tenants obtained by appellant “solely with the desire of increasing the amount of rental in direct violation of the аgreements entered into with the [appellant] herein.” (emphasis added). This was a simple breach оf contract; it was not a tort. It was not extreme or outrageous conduct sufficient to exceеd the bounds of decency so as to render the lessor liable for emotional distress. Appellant’s remedy, if the lessor breached a separate oral agreement regarding occupanсy of the apartment, is limited to those damages which are traditionally awarded in breach of contract actions. Therefore, the trial court could properly dismiss the tenant’s counterclaim for emotional distress and punitive damages.
*617 However, the tenant was entitled to allege in her counterclaim a set-off for any rental deposit made upon execution of the lease and not fоrfeited during occupancy of the apartment. Even though this portion of the counterclaim was nоt pleaded with specificity, the claim appears clearly in the counterclaim. It was adеquate to prevent a total dismissal of appellant’s counterclaim.
The order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to appellant’s counterclaim is reversed. The action is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is not retained.
Notes
. Common examрles, according to the Restatement, are “contracts of carriers and innkeepers with pаssengers and guests, contracts for the carriage or proper disposition of dead bodies, and contracts for the delivery of messages concerning death." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 353, comment a.