S KUMAR Vs. G R KATAPALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing was that a petition for fixation of standard rent of the premises was already pending before the Rent Controller and the landlords/respondents could not pursue the remedy by way of a suit for possession simultaneously. It is also submitted that an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is also pending. The learned Addl. District Judge has noticed an order passed by this Court in a Civil Revision filed by the appellant against the order dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. That order makes it clear that the two parallel proceedings can in law continue simultaneously and this could not be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. A Division Bench judgment of this Court has been relied upon in the said order. The said judgment is a decision dated 10th May, 1996 in RFA No. 94/1996 entitled M/s. New United Automobiles v. Cycle Equipments Private Ltd., 19971 RCR 69. We would like to add that mere pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent cannot defeat a suit for possession. The present tenancy was admittedly created vide a registered lease deed dated 29th April, 1980. As per the lease deed agreed rent of the premises is Rs. 4,000.00 per month. Para I of the terms and conditions of the lease runs as under:

(2.) Thus we find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact the rent for the suit premises was Rs. 2,500.00 per month and the balance amount of Rs. 1,500 .00 per month was to be paid on account of use of furniture and fittings provided in the premises. Since no furniture and fittings were actually provided, the appellant according to the Counsel for the appellant was delivered possession of the first floor of the premises in lieu thereof. We are unable to accept this. The argument appears to be preposterous. Firstly, a list of the furniture and fittings provided in the premises is annexed to the lease deed itself. This forms part of the registered lease deed. In view of this, it cannot be said that furniture and fittings were not provided to the tenant. Secondly, the above quoted para of the lease deed shows that the rent of the premises was the consolidated figure of Rs. 4,000.00 per month. Here we would also like to note that now the law is settled that in such matters, we have to take into consideration the consolidated figure of rent. Therefore, there is no merit or substance in the argument that the rent was actually Rs. 2,500.00 per month and, therefore, a civil suit was not maintainable.