( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession of the property which is a showroom and bears Municipal No. H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as "suit property" for short ). He has also claimed mesne profits alloging that defendants are in unauthorised occupation of the said property of which it claims to be the owner. In the plaint it is averred that Arya Dharam Sewa Sangh was the owner and landlord of the property in question (of H-Block) Including premises No. H - 72, connaught Circus, New Delhi. The plaintiff had purchased this property from Arya Dharam Sewa Sangh vide Sale Deed dated 31/3/1994 which is registered with the Sub-Registrar at No. 2253 additional Book No. l, volume 8223 on pages 1-249 dated 31/3/1994. Defendants 1 to 3 were the tenants of the suit property and a part of the same has been sub-let to defendant no. 4. The tenancy of defendants 1 to 3 has been a monthly tenancy which commenced on 26th day of each English calendar month and expired on the expiry of 25th day of succeeding English calendar month. It is mentioned in the plaint that defendants 1 to 3 took the premises on rent vide Registered Lease Deed which expired by efflux of time on 27/5/1989 as the same was for a period of 114 months commencing from 26/11/1979. No fresh lease deed was executed between the predecessor in title of the plaintiff or with the plaintiff. Therefore, defendants became the tenant by holding over. Defendants had sub-let the part of premises to defendant No. 4 at a monthly rent of Rs. 24,701. 75. Plaintiff served notice dated 11/7/1997 upon the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act terminating the tenancy of the defendants on the expiry of 25/8/1997 asking defendants to vacate the premises. However, as the premises were not vacated present suit for possession has been filed. Damages/mesne profits amounting to rs. 5 lakhs are claimed for the period from 26/8/1997 to 25/9/1997. Defendants 1 to 3 on the one hand and the defendant No. 4 on the other filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 a number of preliminary objections are taken. It is contended that suit is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control act as the rent of the premises payable by defendants 1 to 3 is only Rs. l400. 00per month which is much less than rs. 3,500. 00. They have also stated that suit proceedings are liable to be stayed under Section 10 of code of Civil Procedure as the similar proceedings for eviction in respect of same premises are pending adjudication before the Court of Additional Rent controller, Delhi being Case No. 21/1994 where the matter in controversy is directly and substantially the same as in the present suit. Ownership of plaintiff is denied submitting that there is no relationship between plaintiff-landlord and defendants 1 to 3. Receipt of notice dated ll/7/1997 sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is also denied. It is also stated that tenancy created by plaintiff in favour of these defendants has not come to an end which could be determined only by an order passed by Rent controller on any of the grounds enumerated under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 4 somewhat similar pleas have been taken. Additionally it is stated that defendant No. 4 is tenant of defendant no. l at a monthly rent of Rs. 24,701. 75 paise and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to file any such suit. The plaintiff filed replications to both the written statements controverting the various pleas taken by defendants 1 to 4 in their respective written statements.

( 2 ) AT this stage the plaintiff has filed this ia. 6729/2000 under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XX Rule 12 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code in which it is prayed that this court may pass the decree of e