MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the additional District Judge Delhi in Suit No. 560/04/01.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 3 ) THE Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of Rs. 58000/- and damages of Rs. 29,000/- per day w. e. f. 1. 7. 2001 in respect of premises No. 625-632, ward VI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi against the defendant on 2. 7. 2001.

( 4 ) THE Plaintiff/respondent are owners of the suit premises. They inducted the defendant bank as a tenant of the said premises in an area of 5528 sq. ft.

( 5 ) THE lease deed executed on 10. 9. 1990 between the lessors and the appellant bank (lessees) stated that the lease is for 10 years commencing from 1. 7. 1986 i. e. ending on 30. 6. 1996. There was a clause in the lease deed which stated that the lessee shall have the right to renew the lease of the premises for another period of five years after 30. 6. 1996 on the same terms and conditions except increase of rent by 20%. The initial rate of rent was Rs. 47520/- per month. The tenancy of the appellant bank was to expire on 30. 6. 1996, but the defendant bank (the appellant) exercised its option of renewal beyond 30. 6. 1996 for five years vide letter dated 14. 6. 1996.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff/respondent had by letters dated 6. 10. 2000 and 25. 1. 2001 informed the defendant bank about the expiry of the lease and called upon the bank to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property on 30. 6. 2001.

( 7 ) THE defendant filed a written statement in the suit stating that the lease was for 10 years from 1. 7. 1986 which expired on 30. 6. 1996. Thereafter no registered lease deed was executed and the tenancy became a monthly tenancy. The defendant took the plea that notices dated 6. 10. 2000 and 25. 1. 2001 were never served upon it. They further stated that these notices did not conform to section 106 Transfer of Property Act.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff in their replication stated that the extended terms of the lease expired on 30. 6. 1996 and no further lease deed was executed. However, by letter dated 14. 6. 1996 the bank opted for renewal of the lease for another five years, as per the lease deed. It was further stated that after the letters dated 6. 10. 2000 and 25. 1. 2001 another letter dated 31. 5. 2001 was addressed to the defendant bank categorically stating that the tenancy was to expire at the end of June 2001 and the bank was called upon to hand over possession of the premises on the expiry of 30. 6. 2001. Yet another letter dated 20. 6. 2001 was addressed to the bank again stating that the tenancy was coming to an end on 30. 6. 2001 and pointing out that thereafter remittance of any rent would be on account of compensation for overstay. By letter dated 20. 6. 2001 the defendant acknowledged the receipt of letters dated 31. 5. 2001 and 20. 6. 2001 but insisted that it was a lawful tenancy and refused to vacate the premises even after 30. 6. 2001.

( 9 ) THE plaintiff filed documents in support of the case, but the defendant did not file any documents. The defendant during admission/denial admitted the letters dated 31. 5. 2001 and 20. 6. 2001 of the plaintiff which were marked as Exhibit P5 and P6. The defendant also admitted its own reply dated 27. 6. 2001 which was marked as Exhibit p7.

( 10 ) ISSUES were framed and the case was fixed for evidence. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC which was contested by the defendant but the court vide judgment and order dated 25. 7. 2005 passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the case does not fall within the ambit of Order 12 Rule 6 cpc. However the trial court referred to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Ors. 2000 (7) SCC 120. A division Bench of this Court in Rajiv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document