The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of tenancy termination, the burden of proof lies with the party claiming termination, and without proper evidence or presumption of service, the claim may be dismissed.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1999 passed by the Court of Mrs. Manju Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant/plaintiff s suit for possession and damages against the respondent/defendant holding that the service of notice terminating the tenancy was not proved.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this appeal briefly are: that appellants filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of possession of the premises No. C-772, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as suit premises) alongwith its fittings and fixtures and for recovery of damages, alleging therein that plaintiff No. 1 as the owner of the suit premises and plaintiff No. 2 as the owner of the fittings and fixtures provided therein and they had, by two agreements dated 10th August, 1993, leased out the ground floor of the suit premises for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000. 00 and fittings and fixtures attached in the suit premises on a. monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. 00 for a period of three years; the agreements provided that the lease would stand automatically terminated on 9th August, 1996 and shall not be extended thereafter.

( 3 ) APPELLANT No. 1 sent a notice dated 9th December, 1993, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 through her lawyer, terminating the tenancy of the respondent w. e. f. 31. 1. 1994 claiming damages@ Rs. 10,000. 00 per month for use and occupation of the suit premises after the termination of the lease; and for recovery of Rs. 1,05,000. 00 towards the damages caused to the premises due to the illegal construction and additions and alterations in the suit premises by the respondent. The respondent filed a written statement contesting the suit disputing and denying the material averments made in the plaint. "the service of notice dated 9th December, 1993, was also denied.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following isuses

1. Is the suit barred by Order 2, Rule 2, CPC? 2. Was the defendant served with a notice of termination of tenancy? If not, to what effect? 3. Was the notice of termination of tenancy valid? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to damages for use and occupation? If so, at what rate and for what period? 5. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any amount towards damages allegedly caused to the suit property by the defendants? 6. TO what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?

( 5 ) PUBLIC Witness 1, Mrs. Rita Roy, appeared as General Attorney for plaintiffs No, 1 and 2, she proved General Power of Attorney executed by her mother (plaintiff No. 1) and her sister (plaintiff No. 2) as Exhibit Public Witness I/i and Exhibit Public Witness 1/2; original perpetual lease of the suit premises Exhibit Public Witness 1/3 and original completion certificate Exhibit Public Witness I /4. She stated that appellants had let out to the respondents ground floor of the suit premises with the fittings and fixtures to the defendants @ Rs. 8,000. 00 and Rs. 4,000. 00 per month respectively, that the tenants had agreed not to make any additions and alterations in the suit premises without their consent in writing. Since the lease agreements, between the plaintiffs and the respondent sought to be proved were objected to, the same were marked as a and b respectively, with a note that question of exhibiting documents will be decided at the later stage. She claimed that on 28th August, 1993 respondent made extensive additions and alterations causing damages to the suit property but restricting her claim, for damages to Rs. l,05,000. 00 only. She also proved, a copy of the notice to quit given by appellants to the respondent exhibited Public Witness 1/7; postal receipts vide which the notice was sent Exhibit Public Witness 1/8, certificate/letter from the post office regarding the service of the said notice on the defendant. Exhibit Public Witness I /9. Mode of proof of this document also was objected; she clai