( 1 )

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties slated that as the point involved in the appeal is very short the same be heard and Finally decided at this stage itself; accordingly; by this order we propose to dispose of this appeal.

( 3 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd April, 1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit of the respondent (plaintiff) for possession and mesne profits against the appellant (defendant) under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short cpc ).

( 4 ) FACTS giving arise to this appeal briefly are that respondent (plaintiff) Filed a suit on 4th May, 1998 against the appellant (defendant) for recovery of possession and for damages/mesne profits for unauthorised use and occupation of flat No. 9, 3rd Floor, measuring about 721 sq. ft. in New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) alleging therein that the respondent was the landlord/owner of the suit premises which were in occupation of the appellant/tenant on a monthly rent ofrs. 5,000. 00. although the tenancy had expired by efflux of time on 13th April, 1997, yet by way of abundant caution, fresh notice dated 3rd March, 1998 was issued terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st March, 1998 and calling upon the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. Same was not done, therefore on 4th May, 1998 the suit was filed for possession also claiming damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 80,000. 00 per month for illegal use and occupation of the suit premises.

( 5 ) APPELLANT (TENANT) while contesting the suit in the written statement pleaded that the suit premises were initially occupied in 1975 on the basis of a lease deed in their favour; In 1991 the respondent/owner Filed a suit for eviction alleging therein that though the rent was Fixed at the rate of Rs. 2820. 00 per month, the owner increased the rent to Rs. 3102. 00 per month, which was not paid, therefore, the respondent/owner sought the eviction.

( 6 ) IN 1994 respondent/owner withdrew this suit and a settlement was arrived at under which respondent/owner received and accepted Rs. 67,760. 00 for the past arrears and entered into a fresh rent agreement with effect from 1st May, 1994 for a period of three years, at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000. 00 ; it was also agreed that the lease can be renewed for a period and on rental, terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between them.

( 7 ) IT was further pleaded in the written statement that despite this renewal the respondent/owner got issued a notice on 24th August, 1994 requiring appellant/tenant to vacate the suit premises, and second suit for possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 65,000. 00 with effect from 1. 3. 95 was Filed on 27th March, 1995. This suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/owner on 31st July, 1997. The appellant/tenant Filed an appeal against this order in the High Court (RFA 319/97) which was admitted and impugned judgment was stayed. However, the appeal became infructuous and did not survive consequent upon the respondent/owner making a statement withdrawing the suit itself on 28. 2. 1998.

( 8 ) IT was also pleaded in the written statement that the respondent/owner was estopped from terminating the tenancy alter having increased the rent from Rs. 2820. 00 per month to Rs. 5,000. 00 per month on 01. 05. 1994; that the notice was not addressed lo the proper person; that defendant being a Government organisation having established their office in suit premises since 1975, it was not open to the respondent/owner to determine the tenancy on their whims and fancy.

( 9 ) AFTER pleadings were completed respondent/owner Filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code submitting therein that the appellant/tenant in written statement had submitted the factum of the respondent being the owner; service of notice of termination of