( 1 ) IN this suit for ejectment and mean profits, the plaintiff has made an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for a decree in its favour on the admissions of the defendant. The facts leading to the institution of the suit and the application filed by the plaintiff may be set out thus:-

( 2 ) IN terms of lease agreement dated 28th May, 1999 executed between the parties, the plaintiff company let out the suit premises comprising basement, ground floor and mezzanine floor of a commercial building situate in the Masjid Moth area of new Delhi. The lease deed purported to create a lease initially for a period of three years commencing from Ist June, 1999 and gave to the lessee the option of renewal for two further terms of three years each subject to its fulfilling the terms stipulated for such renewals. The plaintiff s case is that the defendant lessee did not exercise the option of renewal of the lease inasmuch as the lessee did not comply with the conditions stipulated for such renewal in particular the lessee did not, according to the plaintiff, give to the latter, a notice in writing expressing its desire to avail of the option to renew the lease. It did not even pay the advance rent of six months and security deposit at the enhanced rate nor was any lease deed for the renewed period signed or registered. The plaintiff s further case is that it reminded the defendant about the conditions subject to which a renewal could be granted by plaintiff s letter dated 17th June, 2002 but the defendant did not respond to the same thereby showing that it was not interested in the renewal of the lease. It was, in that backdrop, that the plaintiff sent a letter dated 13th July, 2002 through its advocate intimating to the defendant, the latter s failure to comply with its obligations under the lease agreement for renewal of the lease and pointing out that the defendant was an unauthorised occupant of the premises hence liable to restore the same to the plaintiff. The notice called upon the defendant to treat its tenancy as having been terminated with the close of 31st August, 2002 and to hand over vacant physical possession thereof on or before 31st August, 2002.

( 3 ) THE defendant did not comply with the notice sent to it. It, on the other hand, set up an oral settlement between the parties which settlement, according to the plaintiff, had never taken place. A reply to that effect was sent by the plaintiff through its advocate. The plaintiff, therefore, claims that the defendant is an unauthorised occupant of the suit premises and is liable to be evicted from the same. The plaintiff has also claimed compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises/mesne profits pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 12,25,000/- p. m.

( 4 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendant it is inter alia asserted that the lease in question is for a period of nine years commencing from 1st June, 1999. The defendant s case is that enhancement of the rent by the defendant after every three years is of no consequence in so far as the defendant s right to continue in occupation of the premises is concerned. The defendant also asserts that the provision made in the lease agreement for a notice in writing as a condition precedent for renewal of the lease is devoid of any meaning. The plaintiff having accepted an advance rent of rs. 18,37,500/-, is not, according to the defendant, entitled to raise any controversy regarding the continuation of the lease for a period of nine years. The allegation that the defendant is an unauthorised occupant of the demised premises is denied and the suit, according the defendant liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) IT is in the above background that the plaintiff has filed IA No. 3142/2003 in which the plaintiff has prayed for a judgment and decree in its favour on the admissions made by the defendant. The plaintiff s case in the application is that it granted a lease in favour of the defendant for a period of thre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document