( 1 ) THIS Appeal is directed against Judgment and decree dated 31st January 1997 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the Suit for ejectment filed by the appellant against the respondent holding that the notice does not disclose any justifiable cause and sufficient ground for determination of the lease.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this appeal briefly are that on 21st December 1989 the appellant (plaintiff) filed a Suit against the respondent (defendant) for possession of commercial Flat No. 46 and 49, 1st floor, Raghushree Shopping Complex, Ajmeri date, Delhi alleging therein that the premises were with the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 3516. 70p. ; requisite permission from the Slum Authority was obtained to institute the eviction proceedings in respect of suit premises; the tenancy of the respondent was from month to month basis, which was terminated vide notice dated 9th September 1989 and the respondent failed to handover the vacant possession of the premises by the end of 31st October 1989.

( 3 ) THE respondent while opposing the suit in written statement took up several the pleas, that the lease was for an indefinite period and there was no question of termination of the tenancy; the premises in question were taken on rent with the permission of the Commissioner of Police, Union of India and other Authorities, therefore, they were the necessary parties and thus Suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties; that the notice of termination of the tenancy was notroper and legal as the respondent had not committed breach of any term of the tenancy; jurisdiction of the Court and valuation of the suit, were also challenged.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the tenancy of the defendant was lawfully terminated by valid notice? If so the effect? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act and the suit has been filed by a competent person? OPP. 3. Whether the suil is not maintainable on the grounds staled in the preliminary objections of the W. S. ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether the tenancy was for an indefinite period and could not be legally terminated? OPD. 6, Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued and the court fee paid is not sufficient? OPD 8. Relief.

( 5 ) THE appellant/plaintiff examined PW-1 R. C. Shukia its Manager-cum-Attorney, who stated that the plaintiff was a registered partnership Firm and proved certified copy of Form-A Ex. P-1, notice of termination of tenancy Ex. P-3 and the Certificate of Posting of the notice Ex. P-4; reply to the said notice received from the defendant Ex. P-5; copy of the permission obtained under Section 19 (10) (a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 Ex. P-7 and the site plan of the suit premises Ex. P-6. Respondent/defendant examined DW-1 Shri Baijil Singh who stad that they were selling arms and ammunition from the suit premises tor the last 20 years alter obtaining licence from DCP (Licensing); premises were taken on rent tor indefinite period and that the Appellant had agreed to the same at the time of creation of the tenancy. A strong room for keeping arms and ammunition was also constructed in the said premises. They were paying rent regularly and had not committed any breach and that on the request of the appellant/plaintiff they had increased the rent in May 1989 from Rs. 3197. 00 to Rs. 3516. 70p per month.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the above evidence trial court dismissed the suit holding that notice did not disclose sufficient cause and the same was waived and decided issue No. 1 against the appellant/plaintiff. All other issues were decided in favour of the appellant. We heard Shri S. K. Kaul learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and Shri J. C. Mahindroo, Adv. on behalf