JUDGMENT Vikramjit Sen, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Tribunal under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, on the question of the rate at which rent is to be deposited by the Respondent in the duration of the disposal of eviction petition. It is thus in respect of Orders which are intrinsically interlocutory in nature. An eviction petition had been filed by the landlord which was decreed ex parte. The Respondent subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and thereafter in his application seeking leave to contest under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act stating in essence that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Thereafter an application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The 'assertion in this application is that the rent was Rs. 300/- per month. It is correct that there is no specific denial to this statement but it is incorrect that this question has not been traversed at all. It has been repeatedly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a pedantic approach should be eschewed by the Court and that the interpretation that should be given to pleadings should be in consonance with the overall submission expressed therein. Where it is evident that there is an evasive denial, or no denial at all, the statements should be deemed to have been admitted.
2. The stand of the Respondent is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. A holistic reading of the replies/application discloses this position. It was mentioned that the Respondent had not been asked by the erstwhile landlord to attorn to the Petitioners, who admittedly have purchased the property from the erstwhile owner/landlord. When it has been stated by the Respondent that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, I fail to appreciate how an admission can be extracted and elicited to the effect that the rate of rent of Rs. 300/- had not been denied. When the entire relationship has been denied, along with it the rate of rent must be held to have been refuted also. A denial of this nature attracts far reaching consequences since that party may lose the protection extended to tenants under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. Both the courts below have concurrently found that there is no extraneous or outside evidence to support the Petitioner's assertion that the rent was Rs. 300/-. Both the courts have not accepted the Petitioner's self-serving statement pertaining to rent being Rs. 300/- per month and have ordered payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per month. But this order is only interlocutory and subject to change after evidence is brought on record. The Respondents who are litigating are not financially strong. There is a brooding possibility that The effect of an order whereby rent is to be deposited at the rate of Rs. 300 may have the effect of making it impossible for the Respondent to comply with the order, and thereby endangering the right to defend the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on (1) Jahuri Sah and Ors. v. Dwarika Prasad Jhunjhunwala and Ors. , , (2) Sapna Singh Pathania v. Jagdish Chand, 1998 RLR 598(SC) and (3) Kewal Krishan v. Dina Nath, 1992 RLR (NSC) 86 . Having considered the ratio of these judgment they are of no avail of the Petitioner. The decision of the Apex court is clearly against the proposition put forward by learned counsel for the Petitioner on the aspect of admission as well as the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The second precedent has no relevance since the Respondent has categorically stated that he is not a tenant under the Petitioner; only a tenant is liable to pay rent. The third decision of which is that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court merely states (as per the Report) that there was neither a specific denial by the tenant of non-payment nor had details of the deposit of rent been given. These observations are of no assistance in a case where a party denies its liability to pay rent.
5. As has already been observed above, the Respondent has taken a specific plea of the absence of any relationship of landlord and tenant. That is an omnibus defense which takes within its fold the denial of rent whether it be at Rs. 300/-, of Rs. 2.75 as has been ordered by the Courts below. In fact this liability to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 2.75 is not founded on the pleadings of the Respondent but has been drawn by the Court from the records of the Rehabilitation Department, and applied to the issue of rent.
6. At the commencement of the arguments I had queried from the counsel for the Petitioner as to how the present petition under Article 227 was maintainable. The answer is that there is a question of law which has arisen. The legislature must have been aware of the totality of the situation, but has not provided for a relief by an appeal. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in this case is wholly unwarranted. I was, therefore, inclined to dismiss the petition with costs, but I shall refrain from doing so.
7. The petition is without merit.
8. Dismissed.