( 1 ) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court, against order dated 20. 3. 1992 passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his application under Order 12 Rule 6, Order 39 Rule 10 (wrongly mentioned in the order as under Order 39 rules 1 and 2) and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. for interim relief, i. e. , for order for payment of arrears of damages w. e. f. September, 1989 at the admitted rate of rent of Rs. 4,000. 00 per month has been disallowed.

( 2 ) THE respondent has died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been substituted.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the appellant claiming to be Landlord of the premises No. A-46, Kailash Colony, New Delhi has filed a suit against the deceased respondent (defendant in the Trial Court) for possession of demised premises and for recovery of arrears of damages/mesne profits. It was alleged that defendant was tenant since 1. 11. 1977 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. 00 exclusive of water and electricity charges, his tenancy was terminated first by means of a notice dated 12. 5. 1989 and again by means of notice dated 3. 11. 1989 on 30. 11. 1989. Plaintiff appellant claimed damages /mesne profits from June, 1989 or in the alternative from December, 1989 at the current market rate of Rs. 30,000. 00 per month. Defendant/respondent filed a written statement and inter alia it was alleged that the plaintiff was only a Rent Collector of the premises, and was not the Landlord; that all the owners of the premises were necessary parties nor the tenancy has been terminated by all the owners. It was also alleged that the premises had been let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000. 00 and Rs. 1,000. 00 was to be paid on account of charges for the then existing fittings and fixtures. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass the decree for possession is also disputed as according to the defendant the rent was less than Rs. 3,500. 00 per month and only the Rent Controller was competent to entertain petition for and pass the order of eviction. The plaintiff has denied these facts who alleged that he had let out the premises and rent was Rs. 4,000. 00 p. m.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit the appellant/plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6, Order 39 Rule 10 and section 151 Civil Procedure Code. for interim relief to the effect to direct the defendant to pay to the plaintiff or deposit in the Court the arrears of damages w. e. f. September, 1989 up to date at the admitted rate of Rs. 4,000. 00 per month and also to continue to so pay or deposit the same in the Court at the said agreed rate in future every month. This application was also contested and the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 20. 3. 1992 observed that the defendant had disputed the rate of rent and as such there is no unambiguous and unequivocal admission in the pleadings on the part of the defendant and so the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code. were not attracted and dismissed the application.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved the appellant has come in appeal.

( 6 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the rate of rent was Rs. 4,000. 00 per month and the tenant had also admitted that the rent was Rs. 3,000. 00 per month and another sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 was payable on account of fittings and fixtures. According to him premises are let out with fittings and fixtures which form part of the premises and as such any charge towards rent and towards fittings and fixtures is nothing but rent of the premises as part of the same tenancy and the rent is Rs. 4,000. 00 p. m. and not as claimed by the defendant. He has also contended that the fact that rent was Rs. 4,000. 00 was also admitted by the respondent/tenant in writ petition CWP No. 946/1990 titled H. N. Pahilaj Vs. Union of India and Ors filed by h