( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 17th October, 1997 whereby a suit for possession and mesne profits and arrears of rent with respect to flat No. 106, First Floor, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi was decreed. The respondent filed the said suit as owner/landlord of the premises against the appellant herein. Admittedly the premises was let out by the respondent to the appellant vide a registered lease deed dated 15th October, 1973. The rent of the premises as per the lease deed was fixed at Rs. 3,676. 75p per month. According to the respondent a notice dated 2nd February, 1996 was issued by her advocate whereby the tenancy of the appellant was terminated and the appellant was called upon to hand over the vacant possession of the premises. The suit was filed on or about 20th March, 1996.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged the following points: (i) the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because the rent of the premises was below Rs. 3,500. 00 per month and, therefore, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied; (ii) the notice dated 2nd February, 1996 was not valid as it did not allow 15 clear days as envisaged under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; (iii) the award of damages/mesne profits by the trial court was wholly arbitrary and illegal.

( 3 ) REGARDING the argument of absence of jurisdiction of the civil court, our attention was drawn to para 2 of the plaint wherein it is stated that the rent of the premises is Rs. 3,676. 75p per month including property tax, but excluding all other charges such as water and maintenance etc. The learned counsel submitted that it is plaintiff s own case that the said amount of monthly rent is inclusive of property tax. The property tax for the premises was bound to be more than Rs. 176. 75p per month and if that element is taken out from the figure of Rs. 3,676. 75p mentioned in para 2 of the plaint, the rent will be below Rs. 3,500. 00 per month, taking the case outside the jurisdiction of the civil court. To rebut this argument raised on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn our attention to at least three aspects. First, reference has been drawn to the lease deed which is an admitted document. Para 1 of the covenants undertaken by the lessee reads: "to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 3,676,75p hereby reserved on or before the 7th day of each english calendar month. " Secondly, it is submitted that there is no plea in the written statement filed by the appellant before the trial court that the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because the rent of the premises was below Rs. 3,500. 00 per month. According to the learned counsel for respondent, the defendant rather admitted in the written statement that the rent was above Rs. 3,500. 00 per month. To make good this submission reference was invited to para 7 of the plaint where it is stated:

"as already mentioned hereinbefore, the rent of the premises in suit since the inception of the tenancy has been and in any case has been lastly paid by the defendant herein at the rate of Rs. 3,676. 75 (Rupees three thousand six hundred seventy six and paise seventy five only) per month, including property taxes, but excluding all other charges such as water and maintenance etc. Manifestly, it always exceeded Rs. 3,500. 00 (Rupees three thousand five hundred only ). "

( 4 ) IN the written statement the contents of para 7 of the plaint have been admitted as corect. From this it is deduced that the last line of para 7 of the plaint where it is stated that the rent always exceeded Rs. 3,500. 00 per month has been accepted by the defendant. Thirdly, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that by stating in the plaint that the rent of Rs. 3,676. 75p per month was inclusive of property tax, the only idea was to convey that the tenant did not hav