Acquiescence to the jurisdiction of a court precludes a party from raising new objections at a later stage.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - While questioning the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, the defendant has come up in the present appeal.

2. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgments as well as the records of the courts below which was requisitioned.

3. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that there is no forfeiture of the tenancy rights merely because the appellant denied the relationship because as per the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act'), the grounds of eviction of a tenant are specifically provided which does not include the forfeiture of tenancy on the denial of landlord and tenant relationship, therefore, the judgments passed by the courts below are not sustainable. He relies upon judgment in Devasahayam (dead) by LRs vs. P. Savithramma and others, (2005) 7 SCC 653. While elaborating, he submits that previously the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) himself filed a petition under section 13 of the 1973 Act, alleging that the appellant is a tenant. He submits that in view of the admission of the respondent, the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent relies upon the judgment passed in M/s Khosla Ice and General Mills vs. Padmawafi (dead) through LRs and others 2016 (10) R.C.R(Civil), 810, to contend that once the appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant while claiming that he has acquired ownership by the prescription of time (adverse possession) by setting up a hostile title against the respondent, then the Rent Controller has no power to decide the same. He submits that the appellant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath.

5. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties and have considered, evaluated and analyzed the facts of the case.

6. On 30.08.2010, at the first instance, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1973 Act, seeking eviction of the appellant herein, from the house in question. While contesting the rent petition, the appellant took a positive and categoric stand that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellant claimed that he has become the owner in possession of the property by way of adverse possession. Para 1 of the preliminary objections of the reply filed by the appellant reads as under:-

'1. That this Hon'ble Court (Rent Controller) has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition because there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties to the petition. The respondent never took the premises from the petitioner on rent or otherwise the respondent is in actual physical possession of the premises in question continuously without any interruption, peacefully, hostile and without payment of rent etc. to any one including the petitioner since 1.4.1995. Thus the respondent has become owner in possession by way of adverse possession. Thus, this Hon'ble Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition."

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid statement, the learned counsel representing the respondent herein withdrew the rent petition while seeking permission to file a civil suit. In the presence of learned counsel representing the appellant, the Rent Controller passed the following order on 08.02.2011, on the basis of the statement of the counsel representing the respondent herein which reads as under:-

'Present: Sh. Anand Gupta, Adv. for petitioner. Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent. Today, the case was fixed for assessment of rent and filing of replication. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the responde