( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 16. 1. 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 104/1998. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondents as Plaintiffs on 6. 3. 1988 seeking a decree of ejectment and for payment of damages/mesne profits against the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE respondents/plaintiffs stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the rent and the maintenance charges of the suit premises were increased from time to time and that finally with effect from October, 1977, aggregate monthly rent of the said premises became Rs. 3,684. 00 made up of Rs. 3,146. 00 and Rs. 538. 00 being paid by the defendant towards the maintenance charges in respect of the said premises.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner/defendant contested the suit on various ground including the ground that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act contending, inter alia, that the rent paid to the respondents/plaintiffs was inclusive of all taxes rates and charges, but, exclusive of maintenance charges and, therefore, the rent of the premises should be computed as Rs. 3,146. 00 per month which was payable by the petitioner to the respondents and that so computed the Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit in view of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, a preliminary issue was framed by the Additional District Judge as to whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Additional District Judge after hearing the parties by her order dated 16. 1. 1999 awarded the aforesaid preliminary issue No. 1 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and held that the suit is not barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Additional District Judge, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

( 4 ) IT was submitted by Mr. S. K. Taneja, counsel appearing for the petitioner that the unregistered lease deed dated 22. 10. 1979 entered into between the parties hereto clearly recites that the rate of rent for the premises was Rs. 1,775. 40 inclusive of all taxes, rates and charges but, exclusive of maintenance charges and with the increase the present rate of rent was Rs. 3,146. 00 per month and, therefore, the suit filed in the Civil Court was clearly barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel drew my attention to the recitals of the lease deed particularly, to clause (1) and clause (2) thereof. Clause (1) of the said lease deed recites that the monthly rent is inclusive of all taxes, rates and charges but exclusive of the maintenance charges. Clause (2) on the other hand recites that the Lessee shall pay each month actual maintenance charges to the Maintenance Society or any other body, association or to the Lessor as the case may be according to the bills received directly to the Lessee. Relying on the aforesaid clauses, the earned counsel submitted that the contract between the parties specifically stipulates that the maintenance charges as agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents was exclusive of the rent which was fixed at Rs. 1,775. 40 which was subsequently increased to Rs. 3,146. 00 only which is inclusive of all taxes, rates and charges. He also submitted that the maintenance charges cannot be computed as rent and, therefore, payment made outwards maintenance charges cannot be said to be payment towards rent. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Secretary of State Vs. Babu Rajendra Prasad and others; reported in A. I. R. 1937 Patna 391, Banwarilal Sharma Vs. Ram Swaroop; reported in A. I. R. 1974 Raj 178 and also the decision of this Court in Inder Vijay Singh Vs. NDMC; reported in 1995 RLR 254.

( 5 ) MR. A