ORDER
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.4.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 108/1987 disposing of the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent, as plaintiff, claiming for a decree for a sum of Rs. 4,73,882/- being damages/arrears of rent in respect of a shop situated at C-1, Temple Colony, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Samaipur, Delhi which was in use and occupation of the petitioner/defendant. Along with the aforesaid suit the respondent also filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- to the respondent, which according to the respondent is the admitted arrears of rent payable by the petitioner which admission came to be made by him in another suit, namely, Suit No. 242/1994 titled as Vimal Kumar Malhotra Vs. Sunil Aggarwal. The said application was disposed of by the Additional District Judge directing the defendant/petitioner herein to pay the amount of Rs. 21,000/- being admitted amount, subject to adjustment of any amount paid by the defendant in Suit No.282/1984. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present petition was preferred by the petitioner, on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the amount claimed under the aforesaid application under Section 151 CPC was an amount claimed in another suit, namely, Suit No. 282/94 and, therefore, no order for payment of the said amount could be made by the trial court in the suit and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and quashed. It was submitted by the counsel that the amount of Rs. 21,000/- ordered to be paid by the trial court does not fail within the purview of the present suit in which the order is passed and, therefore, the said order is without jurisdiction. In order to appreciate the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the records. In the application filed by the respondent, it was stated that the petitioner/defendant, admitted on 22.2.96 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, that arrears due from him @ Rs. 1,000/-per month works out to Rs. 22,000/- and that the defendant undertook to pay the said amount and clear the arrears in four equal installments. It was stated that in terms of the aforesaid admission the total amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff works out at Rs. 21,000/- when possession was taken from the defendant after following due process of law.
3. As against the aforesaid application a reply was filed by the petitioner contending, interlay, that the present suit is an independent suit having no concern with the order passed by the Civil Court in the other suit and, therefore, no order for deposit of the amount concerning admission in suit could be passed. Considering the aforesaid pleadings of the parties in the present suit and taking notice of the admission on the part of the defendant/petitioner herein, the trial court came to the conclusion that in view of the aforesaid admission there could be a direction issued to the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,000/- subject to adjustment of any amount paid by the defendant in Suit No. 282/94, which he thereby ordered.
4. On consideration of the records, it becomes crystal clear to me that in the pleadings of the present case there is an admission on the part, of the petitioner regarding his liability to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- towards arrear rent. The same is a matter of record. Since there is an admission on the part of the petitioner even in the pleadings of the present case, in my considered opinion, the trial court could exercise his jurisdiction and discretion in directing payment of such admitted amount, which exists in the pleadings of the parties.
Reliance can also be placed on the provisions of Order 39, Rule 10 CPC, which empowers a Court to order for deposit in Court or deliver to such last-named party any amount which belongs to or due to another party.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error in exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court and the petition has, therefore, no merit and is dismissed accordingly.