(1.) The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the suit of the respondent so far as prayer for recovery of possession and mesne profits were concerned. It is because of the reason that the learned trial Court returned the finding to the effect that the monthly rent of the premises in question, which are let out by the respondent to the appellant was Rs. 3300/- and, therefore, jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The decree for recovery of Rs. 6000/- only is passed with proportionate costs and this amount represents arrears of two months' rent. Though the suit for possession and mesne profits is dismissed against the appellant, still appellant has chosen to file this appeal. Reason is that the appellant is disputing that the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 3,300/-. According to the appellant, the rent of the premises is only Rs. 2,200/- per month.
(2.) It may be pointed out at this stage itself that the respondent had let out the premises in question namely, group floor bearing No. 101-102, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi along with two garages and four servant quarters to the appellant vide Lease Agreement dated 26.04.1971 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,200/- and Rs. 800/- per month, payable for use of goods, fittings and fixtures provided in the premises. According to the respondent, the monthly rent was Rs. 3,000/- as Rs. 800/-, which is payable for use of goods, fittings and fixtures, is also a component of 'rent'. On the other hand, the appellant maintained that the rent was Rs. 2,200/- per month and Rs.800/- paid for used of goods, fittings and fixtures could not be included as part of rent.
(3.) The trial Court has accepted the plea of the respondent in this behalf. This is the primary question which needs determination, viz., whether the trial Court is right in holding that the rent was Rs. 3000/- per month or the plea of the appellant needs to be accepted to the effect that rent is only Rs. 2,200/- per month.