( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Syrian Arab Republic aggrieved by the judgment and decree of possession passed against them by the learned Single Judge. The suit for possession and recovery of damages for use and occupations of the premises No. 15, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was filed by Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi, wife of late Dr. Nagendra Singh claiming herself as owner landlady of the aforesaid premises. The suit property was let out to the appellant under separate lease agreements. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 29th January, 1996: 1 Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? opd 2 Whether the tenancy of the defendant has not been terminated in accordance with Law? OPD 3 Is the notice dated 27th November, 1990 not valid? OPD 4 Whether the plaintiffs has obtained valid permission under Section 86 of Code of Civil Procedure to file the present suit? OPP 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits? If so, from which date and what rate? OPD 6 Relief. "

( 2 ) ON all the issues, findings were recorded in the impugned judgment against the appellant.

( 3 ) ON issue No. 1, the Court held that the present respondent Mr. A. K. Jaiodia, stepped into the shoes of Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi by virtue of the Will in his favour executed by Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi. On the basis of the Will a Letters of Administration was granted in his favour. The plea that after the demise of Dr. Nagendra Singh, the property was not owned solely by his widow Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi and half portion was owned by Jagat Mata Datri Mata was also not accepted by the learned Single Judge and the issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the respondent.

( 4 ) WITH regard to issue Nos. 2 and 3, the plea of the appellant that Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi had no authority to terminate the tenancy in relation to the suit premises, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The plea of the appellant against the validity of the notice to quit was also not accepted and both the issues were decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

( 5 ) REGARDING issue No. 4, with regard to whether the plaintiff has obtained valid permission under Section 86 of Code of Civil Procedure to file the present suit, this is how the learned Single Judge has dealt in his judgment: "the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises on or before 1st January, 1990 (1991) as requested by the Ministry of External Affairs vide their letter dated 19 11. 1990 (Ex. PW-2/2 ). Ultimately requisite consent under Section 86 (1) of the code to sue the defendant for recovery of possession of suit premises was accorded in favour of Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi vide letter dated 1st January, 1991 (Ex. PW-2/4 ). Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi thereafter filed the present suit. "

( 6 ) AS a matter of fact, the appellant in the suit questioned the validity of the consent so granted under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the plea that the same was illegal and arbitrary and the same was granted without application of mind.

( 7 ) THE appellant also raised a plea on the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the appellant being a body of diplomatic representative, headed by an Ambassador, could not be sued in its own name and since the Government of Syrian Arab Republic has not been made a party, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This plea was not concerned with validity part of the consent granted under Section 86 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though no issue was framed on this plea of the appellant, however, the learned Single Judge also dealt with the said plea.

( 8 ) WHILE dealing with the consent under Section 86 (1) of the Code and the plea relating to the alleged immunity available to a foreign State under Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972. Section 86 (1) of the Code, it was held that consent of the Central Government in relation to a suit to b