( 1 ) ADMIT. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the trial court record hasalready been called and the point involved is very short, therefore, the appeals maybe disposed of at this stage itself. Accordingly by this common judgment we proposeto dispose of these two appeals as same questions of fact and law arise forconsideration.

( 2 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgments and decrees deliveredunder Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) on 2 3/12/1998 by the court of Sh. B S Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Delhidecreeing two suits, one for possession of basement and the other for possession ofground floor of the premises No. 4, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar (for short, the suitpremises), and for mesne profits at the last paid rent with 50% increase, along withrs. 2,300. 00 per month, on account of fittings and fixtures charges, with effect fromseptember, 1996 till the date of handing over of the possession, in favour of therespondents (plaintiffs) against the appellant (defendant ).

( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to these appeals briefly are: that on 27. 1. 97respondents (plaintiffs) filed two separate suits against the appellant (Defendant),seeking decrees of possession and mesne profits in respect of basement andground floor of the suit premises, alleging therein that the plaintiffs had rented out thebasement at Rs. 10,580. 00per month and the ground floor at Rs. 18,250. 00per monthw. e. f. 12. 9. 93 for a period of three years, by two registered tease agreements dated 12/05/1994; and under two other agreements dated 26. 7. 93, the defendant wasto pay Rs. 2,300. 00 per month for fittings and fixtures; the defendant was also to payelectricity and water charges as per the bills received; the defendant failed to pay theelectricity charges from October, 1994 and started deducting the same from the rent. In 1995 the defendant violated the terms of the tenancy, and was called upon to handover the vacant possession of the premises. On 25/05/1996 a notice wasserved upon the defendant to vacate the premises, The tenancies also expired byefflux of time on 12/09/1996; and telegraphic notices were also sent to thedefendant on 8/09/1996 requiring it to vacate the suit premises. It waspleaded that a sum of Rs. 1,82,160. 00for the basement tenancy and Rs. 2,46,600. 00forthe ground floor tenancy was payable as arrears of rent and damages, till the date offiling of the suit.

( 4 ) AFTER service of summons, the defendant (appellant) filed identical writtenstatements, generally denied the averments made of each plaint and raised severalpreliminary objections: that it was in occupation as a tenant since 29. 9. 85: tenancywas not terminated in accordance with law and no notice of termination of tenancy, ascontemplated under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, had beenserved upon it: the suit on the basis of the alleged lease deed dated 12. 5. 94. was notmaintainable as there was no surrender of original tenancy, and the defendantcontinues to be a contractual tenant, in respect of the basement since 12. 9. 90 and inrespect of the ground floor since 29. 11. 85. It was further pleaded that the lease deeddated 12. 5. 94, was never acted upon and was a sham document obtained for thepurposes of taxation for the benefit of the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs concealed the factthat there are two separate tenancies in respect of the ground floor and two separatetenancies in respect of basement. And that plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 had separately beenreceiving one cheque each for basement tenancy and one cheque each for groundfloor tenancy, in their individual names. Another objection was also taken that the suitfor possession of the ground floor was without seeking possession of front and backcourt yards and bath room was not maintainable. Plaintiffs filed replication reiteratingthe averments made in the plaint, inter-alia pleading that upto March, 1995, chequestowards rent used to be give