Yes. In mathematics, 'admit' is often used in statements where a mere 'have' would do the job quite well, and the connotation that this word can bring in is that it is nice or something of an achievement that the object has the property (i.e., the object admits the property).
For example, in proof theory, one often hears that a calculus 'admits' cut elimination (example usage). One might say 'has cut elimination' and it would convey the same fact (and is also often used), but 'admits' conveys the attitude of the speaker/community to cut elimination in that it is a very useful property for a calculus to have, it is inobvious that the calculus has it, and it is sometimes difficult to achieve. In a sequent calculus, cut is one of the derivation rules. Now proofs using cut can be nasty. Cut elimination is a procedure whereby a proof in that calculus that can in principle employ all of the derivation rules is transformed into another proof that makes do without the cut rule. Cut-free proofs tend to be nicer because they have the subformula property: each formula occuring in the proof is a subformula of the formula (sequent) to be proved. This facilitates proof search.
I believe that using 'admit' in your example is motivated analogously. It actually conveys two basic facts: that a fixed point exists and that it is unique. The Wikipedia entry on contraction mapping has the following:
A contraction mapping has at most one fixed point. Moreover, the Banach fixed point theorem states that every contraction mapping on a nonempty complete metric space has a unique fixed point, and that for any x in M the iterated function sequence x, f (x), f (f (x)), f (f (f (x))), ... converges to the fixed point. This concept is very useful for iterated function systems...
The existence of a fixed point, in this case, would be the strong or desirable property for the mapping to have.