( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking decree for possession on the admissions made by defendant no. 1 in the written statement. It is pointed out at the very outset that two portions of the property were leased out vide identical lease deeds both dated 1. 6. 1979 to two sister concerns namely Straw Products Ltd. and defendant no. 1 of the instant suit. Both the suits were consolidated for trial.

( 2 ) SIMILAR application was also made in Civil Suit bearing no. 3381/1991 and was decided on 4. 8. 2000 by Hon ble Mr. Justice J. B. Goel whereby suit was decreed against Straw products Ltd. However, the instant application could not be decided as Hon ble Mr. Justice J. B. Goel retired by that time. Besides merits, it is on the premise of decision of the Hon ble Mr. Justice J. B. Goel moved in s. No. 3381/1991 that decree for possession is being sought in this suit also. Plaintiffs have brought out following admissions emanating from written submissions :-

I) There is admission on the part of defendant no. 1 of the execution of duly registered lease agreement which expired by efflux of time on 31. 5. 1989; (ii) Though the tenancy had expired by efflux of time yet by way of abundant caution and to obviate future legal objection to the tenancy being month to month basis, a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued by the plaintiffs which was duly served upon defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 also sent reply to the said notice of the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT no. 1 has resisted passing of the decree by raising following pleas: (i) that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the premises and therefore they are required to prove their ownership as there is a dispute to the title of the property which is pending adjudication by way of suit of partition bearing s. No. 3144/90. This suit is between the co-owners and was instituted prior to the instant suit; (ii) that the defendant has been paying Rs. 4320. 00 per month to m/s. Superfine Decorators in addition to monthly rent of rs. 5400/- and therefore M/s. Superfine Decorators is a necessary party; (iii) though the lease deed admittedly was for a period of 10 years but the real intention and agreement between the parties was to lease out the premises to defendant no. 1 for an indefinite period of 99 years. This is demonstrated from the stipulation that original rent was for Rs. 4500. 00 for a period of three years whereafter it was to be increased every three years by 10%. Defendant no. 1 was also permitted to make structural alterations and fix even permanent fittings in any portion of the property; (iv) In view of the aforesaid terms of the lease, the entire flooring was changed with Italian and Granite marble stone fittings, both the rooms were re-decorated and the entire premises was made air-conditioned at a huge expense of Rs. 2 crores. These facts show that lease was for a period of 99 years and not for a period of 10 years.

( 4 ) AT the threshold, Mr. R. P. Bansal, learned senior counsel for defendant no. 1 has contended that plaint as such is defective and is not maintainable, firstly for the reason that it has not been signed by all the plaintiffs and secondly that there is no pleading that Sh. S. K. Vohra is a valid constituted attorney of plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 on whose behalf he has signed the plaint nor has the power of attorney been annexed with the plaint and therefore the suit is not signed, verified by a duly authorised person.

( 5 ) MR. BANSAL contends that unless and until it is proved that the plaint has been signed, verified and duly instituted by an authorised person, no decree can be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In support of this contention Mr. Bansal has placed reliance upon decision of this Court in SBI Vs. Midland Industries AIR 1988 Delhi 153 wherein a suit was filed by the Bank for recovery of loan and the similar objection was taken as raised by the learned counsel for the defendant and it