( 1 ) WHETHER impugned judgment and decree for recovery of possession of Flat Nos. 12 and 11 at Connaught Place, New Delhi could have been passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is the question.

( 2 ) THE suit premises was taken on rent by Appellant from predecessor in interest of respondent (M/s. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust) vide Lease Deed dated 30. 7. 1965 for two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,790/ -. The lease was to commence from 27. 5. 1965 and expire on 30. 3. 1967. Appellant, however, continued to remain in possession after the expiry of lease on 30. 3. 1967 also. Meanwhile, pursuant to an amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act, the suit premises fell out of its ambit and the Trust filed a suit No. 191/98 for recovery of possession and damages and mesne profits. The Trust was later substituted by Respondent who had purchased the suit property meanwhile.

( 3 ) APPELLANT filed its written statement raising the preliminary objection that the suit suffered from lack of cause of action and that no notice was served on the Board under Section 478 of DMC Act. On merits, it claimed that it was continuing in the premises as a tenant without any dispute for 23 years as wa