VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision assails the Order dated 3. 5. 2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi holding that the Court is sufficiently and duly possessed of jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and that the suit was not barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code; and that the notice to quit was not invalid. The Learned ADJ had listed the case for recording of evidence on the remaining issues, other than Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which had been disposed of by that Order. The interim orders passed in these proceedings interdicts the final adjudication of the suit by the Trial Court.

( 2 ) THE Trial Court had framed eight Issues out of which the following three Issues were treated as prelimiary Issues and decided by the impugned Order.

(I) Is the suit barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

(II) Is the suit barred by Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC?

(III) Is the notice dated 6. 1. 99 invalid? If so, to what effect?in respect of the first Issue it has been contended by the Revisionist/defendant/tenant that the rate of rent is Rs. 1000/, as per the alleged admission of the Plaintiff in the Reply to the previous Revision filed by the Defendant, only the Rent Controllers possess jurisdiction for granting the relief of possession/ejectment or eviction of the Tenant. In the previous proceedings bearing Civil Revision No. 185/1999 the Tenant had pleaded "that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the Barsati Floor including terraces of the premises being Municipal No. W-129, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi of Respondent No. 1 since 1. 12. 1989 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p. m. excluding electricity and water charges". The response by the Landlord/plaintiff to this statement in the Tenant s Revision reads - "that the contents of para 1 of the petition are admitted". However, the explanation or response of the Respondent/plaintiff/landlord is that Advocate in the High Court was different to the one conducting the case in the Trial Court and this admission was made inadvertently without meaning to admit the rent. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the so-called admission contained in the previous Revision was in proceedings which questioned the legal propriety of the decision of another ADJ permitting the withdrawal of the previous suit, with liberty to file a fresh suit as and when the fresh cause of action arises. The Learned ADJ has correctly observed in the impugned Order that the rate of rent was not the subject matter of the previous Revision petition. After distinguishing the cases cited on behalf of Tenant the Learned ADJ concluded that as the alleged admissions were contained in the Reply to the previous Revision petition they cannot be viewed as conclusive proof. The learned ADJ has relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ramkhilawandhar and others v. Gajodharprasad (dead) by L. Rs. and others, AIR 85 SC 579 and Dhruv Green Field Ltd. Versus Hukam Singh and Ors. , 2002 VI AD (SC) 438 which lay down that the averments and the relief claimed in the plaint determine the jurisdiction of the Court. The Trial Court has, therefore, for the purpose of deciding the Preliminary Issue looked only at the asseveration in the plaint to the effect that the rent was settled at Rs. 4000/- per month, which stance has been reiterated in the Replication The Learned ADJ has mentioned that the correct position of law is that an admission in order to be competent to have value and effect of substantive piece of evidence should be clear, certain and definite and not ambiguous, vague or confused. He has also referred to a series of judgments including Kidar Nath and others v. Ram Chand (dead) and others, AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 335 and Jawala Singh v. Prem singh and others, AIR 1972 Delhi 221, to the effect that an erroneous admission can be retracted. He has preferred to follow the ratio of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, AIR 1960

Click Here to Read the rest of this document