( 1 ) THIS first appeal is filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 30/04/1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby decree for possession has been passed against him under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Suit premises, being the ground floor of property no. 76, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, were let out by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant- defendant by a Lease Deed dated 21/05/1977. Rent was fixed at the time was Rs. 2000. 00 per month which was increased from time to time. At the time when quit notice was served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) the Suit for possession was filed by the respondent herein, rent of the premises was Rs. 10,000. 00 per month. The period of Lease Deed dated 21/05/1977 had expired since long. No fresh lease deed had been executed. Respondent served notice dated 7/11/1997 under Section 106 of the Act terminating the tenancy which, according to the respondent had become month to month tenancy. By the said Notice, tenancy was terminated w. e. f. 30/11/1997 and appellant was asked to vacate the premises. It was also mentioned in the Notice that in case the appellant fails to vacate the premises she would be liable to pay mesne profits Rs. 5000. 00 per day w. e. f. 7/12/1997. As the appellant did not vacate the premises plaintiff-respondent filed Suit No. 522 of 1997 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. Even before the appellant filed the written statement, the respondent herein filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XV of Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking decree on the basis of admissions. Later on, however, the appellant filed the written statement taking number of objections and constested the Suit. The appellant also filed reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Arguments in this application were heard and impugned judgment and decree for possession dated 30/04/1999 was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. In so far as mesne profits are concerned, the enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been ordered by appointing Ms. Hema Baweja, Advocate as Local Commissioner, who was. to undertake this enquiry and determine the mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of the demised premises. Preliminary decree of mesne profits, however, was passed observing that final decree would be passed when the report of the Local Commissioner is received.

( 2 ) IT may be stated at the outset that following facts are admitted between the parties:-

I. Rent of the premises : Rs. 10,000. 00 p. m.

II. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant.

III. Receipt of quit notice issued by the respondent under Section 106 of the Act terminating the tenancy. It is also an admitted case that the tenancy was month to month tenancy, as after the expiry of the lease period, no fresh lease deed had been executed and registered.

( 3 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the aforesaid admissions, it is the case of the appellant that decree for possession on the basis of admission could not have been passed as in the written statement filed by the appellant various jurisdictional, factual and legal pleas were taken and for adjudication of the same trial was necessary inasmuch as these issues could be determined only by evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant however paraphrased the pleas by taking the following twin contentions:

1. Notice dated 7/11/1997 issued under Section 106 of the Act was not a valid and legal notice. His submission was that as per para 6 of the said notice the tenancy was determined w. e. f. 30/11/1997 calling upon the appellant to handover the vact and peaceful possession of the premises on or before the said date. It was, therefore, not terminated by the end of the tenancy month inasmuch as the appellant had right to occupy the premises