In this case, the Delhi High Court noted that in determining jurisdiction in landlord–tenant matters, the Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the escalation of rents in metropolitan cities and courts cannot ignore prevailing market conditions and the rise in rents while considering valuation. The Division Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal, (1988) 3 SCC 423, that underscored that unless mala fides are demonstrable, the Court should ordinarily accept the plaintiff’s valuation, particularly where relief is not susceptible to precise monetary quantification.

It was held:

“32. Further, the doctrine of dominus litis entitles the plaintiff to put a valuation to the reliefs claimed and to choose the forum for pursuit of the claim. This discretion is not absolute, but it cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious.

33. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as dominus litis, has the prerogative to initiate proceedings, choose the forum, and value the suit for the relief claimed, subject only to the limitation that the valuation must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or mala fide. Courts ordinarily respect the Plaintiff’s valuation, unless the valuation is shown to be capricious or clearly unreasonable. This principle has been consistently affirmed by various decisions of this Court.”

and the objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected.

On Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court held that before passing a judgment on admissions, the Court must be satisfied that the admission is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal.

It was held:

“41. The aforesaid statutory provision has crystallized that in a suit for possession, based on landlord–tenant relationship, a decree can be passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, if the following three conditions are met:

1. The existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
2. That the tenancy is not covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; and
3. That the tenancy has been duly terminated.”

and all the above conditions were found satisfied.

The Court further held – “It is a settled principle that a tenant, while continuing in possession, cannot challenge the title of the landlord”. The appeal was dismissed and it was held that the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was properly passed.