( 1 ). THIS order proposes to dispose off the following preliminary issue No. 2 :-

" Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?"

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction of the defendant/tenant, impleading the sub-tenants also invoking the jursdiction of Civil Court on the ground that the premises are fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 3,500. 00p. m. and so the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act , for short) are excluded. The contention of the tenant, on the other hand is that in so far as he and the landlord-plaintiff are concerned, the agreed rent of the premises does not exceed Rs. 3,500. 00 and so Section 3 (c) of the Act would not apply, the rent paid or payable by the sub-tenant to the tenant being irrelevant for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Act to a suit between a landlord and a tenant.

( 3 ) VIDE registered deed of lease dated 5th January, 1978 the suit premises were let out by the predecessor-in-title of the landlord-plaintiff to the tenant defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900. 00 with the effect from 1st June, 1977. The deed authorises the tenant to sub-let the premises. The tenant has inducted defendants No. 2 to 5 as sub-tenants. The rent realised by the tenant from the sub-tenants in respect of the tenancy premises exceeds Rs. 44,500. 00 per month.

( 4 ) SECTION 3 of the Act in so far as relevant for the purpose of this suit is as under :- "3. Act not to apply to certain premises -- Nothing in this Act shall apply: (c) to any premises, whether residential or not whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500. 00.

( 5 ) IT is clear that if it is held that the premises in the suit are one whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500. 00 the suit for ejectment would lie before a Civil Court without attracting protection against eviction under Section 14 of the Act. If not, then the suit shall have to be thrown-out as not maintainable; the suit being entertainable only by a controller and that too on the availability of one or more of the grounds for recovery of possession contemplated by Section 14 of the Act. Section 50 excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court to try any suit which under the Act the Controller is empowered to decide.

( 6 ) A strange but interesting situation has propped-up for consideration. Premises have been let out by the landlord to a tenant at a monthly rent not exceeding Rs. 3,500. 00. The tenant has sub-let the premises exercising the right to sub-let conferred by the terms of tenancy. The monthly rent realised by the tenant from the sub-tenants in respect of the very same premises exceeds Rs. 3,500. 00.

( 7 ). CLAUSE (c) in Section 3 has been inserted by Amending Act No. 57 of 1988 which came into force w. e. f. 1. 12. 88. Constitutional validity of the amendment was challenged, but the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court in D. C. Bhatia and Ors. Union of India and Ors. , JT 1994 (7) SC 114. Their Lordships have held that the term rent is used in the provision in its dictionary meaning and not as standard rent. Their Lordships have further held that though the Act was enacted to provide for the control of rent and eviction and of rates of hotels and lodging house etc. and in that sense was intended to protect the tenants, the amending act has a different purpose altogether. The various objects of the amendment include bringing about a balance between the interests of landlords and tenants and also giving a boost to house building activity. Whether a particular section of people requires protection or not has to be determined at any given point of time. The challenge laid to the validiy of the classification on the basis of rent payable about the premises has been repelled by their Lordships holding that a person who can afford to pay more than Rs. 42,000. 00 a year by way of rent will be by any standard affuluent person in society. He cannot be said to be