The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere acceptance of rent by the landlord after the notice of tenancy termination is not sufficient to create a fresh tenancy under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals rise out of judgment and decree dated 21. 7. 99 passed by the additional District Judge, Delhi bitting as First appellate Court. RSA No. 75/99 has been filed by the fci-tenant and challenges the impugned judgment so far as it passed the decree of possession of the suit premises while Appeal No. 89/99 has been filed by the landlord against the order/direction in regard to the award of mesne profits/user charges f the premises in question.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the relevant facts leading to these appeals are that Flat No. 602, 6th Floor, Rohit house at 3, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi was let out to the fci for commercial purpose for a period of three years at a monthly rent of Rs. 3870. 00 vide a lease deed dated 4. 10. 78 and the tenancy was renewed for a further period of two years i. e. w. e. f. 4. 10. 3981 without any increase in the rate. The landlord terminated the fci s tenancy by means of a registered notice dated 11. 3. 1989 and called upon them to deliver the vacant possession of the flat. It was also claimed that the fci had illegall/ withheld the payment of Rs. 21,500. 00. The FCI having failed to hand over the vacant possession of the flat in question and to pay the due rent, the landlord-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of Rs. 48,000. 00 by giving up a portion of the claim but claiming interest @ 10% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. The suit was contested by the FCI, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit has not been filed, signed and verified by an authorised person on behalf of the pldintiff; plaint did not disclose any cause of action; plaintiff was not entitled to enhancement of rent @ Rs. 327. 00 per month, with regard to withholding of Rs. 21,500. 00, it was explained that a sum of Rs. 21,500. 00 was paid to the Rohit House maintenance Society and Rs. 862. 00 to the New Delhi municipal Corporation and the balance have been paid to the plaintiff vide a cheque dated 1. 9. 88. It was stated that by accepting the cheque for rent without objection, the plaintiff was estopped from raising any plea of the deduction of the said amount. The receipt of the notice dated 11. 3. 89 was not denied, but it was alleged that the notice is illegal, invalid and unenforceable.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues.-

1. WHETHER the present suit has been filed signed and verified by the competent person? OPD. 2. whether the present suit does not disclose any cause of action for the recovery of possession? OPD 3. whether the suit is within limitation period? OPP 4. whether the tenancy of defendant has not been terminated in accordance with law? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession and damages and interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? 6. whether by accepting the cheques plaintiff is estopped from raising any plea of deduction of the said amount of rs. 21,500. 68 as alleged by the defendant in preliminary objection No. 6? OPD 7. whether plaintiff is estopped from raising the plea of eviction as they have been accepting the rent regularly?opd 8. Relief?

( 4 ) ON the basis of the evidence and material led at the trial, the trial court answered issues No. 1 to 4 in negative and against the defendant and answering the other issues in favour of the plainttff, the trial court decreed the suit f the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the flat in question and also for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,500. 00 with interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the FCI filed an appeal and the first appellate court upheld the finding of the learned trial court on all the issues except issue No. 5 and modified the order of the learned trial court s under:-

1. THE plaintiff was entitled to get possession of the suit property, i. e. flat no. 600, Rohit House, 6th Floor, 3, Tolstoy marg, New Delhi. 2. The plai