( 1 ) IN this suit for possession and injunction etc. the plaintiffs have filed I. A. 2217/93under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, alleging that thedefendant was inducted in property bearing No. D-29, S. M. A. Industrial Area, G. T. Karnal Road under an agreement dated 12/06/1987. In Para No. 3 of the writtenstatement the defendant has admitted that it was inducted in the suit property byplaintiffs. The plaintiffs terminated lease/licence of the defendant by a notice dated 7/12/1994 which was duly received by it. In Para No. 16 of the writtenstatement, on merits, the receipt of said notice is admitted by defendant. It is furtheralleged that defendant cannot challenge the title of plaintiffs to the suit property underthe provisions of Evidence Act. In view of the admissions made in written statementthe plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the suit property. It is prayedthat a decree for possession of the suit property may be passed in favour of theplaintiffs and against the defendant.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT has contested the application by filing reply. It is alleged that plaintiffshave deliberately omitted to state the defence taken in written statement by thedefendant. In Para No. 2 of the preliminary objections of written statement the defendanthas denied that plaintiffs are the owners of suit property. In Para No. 16 of writtenstatement it is pleaded that the lease/licence was not validly terminated by the noticedated 7/12/1994 and that notice was later on waived when the plaintiffsmade application for enhancement of rent by 30% after every 35 months. Defendanthas also made a counter claim which is yet to be decided. It is emphatically deniedthat the plaintiffs under Order 12, Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code are entitled to the possession of suitproperty at this stage.

( 3 ) I have heard Sh. J. P. Sengh for plaintiffs and Sh. Sandeep Aggarwal fordefendant and have also been taken through the record.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the defendant was inducted in the suit property under a Leave andlicence agreement dated 12/06/1987, photostat copy whereof is placed a\pages 2 to 7 on Part III file. clause 10 and 14 of this agreemant which arerelevant, read as under:

"1) That the licensor have undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 16. 500. 00 permonth excluding consumption charges for industrial power, commercial lightand water charges on or before the 7th day of each English calendar month. The payment for industrial power, commercial light and water charges shallbe paid by the licensee. 10) That the licensee can terminate this licence/ agreement and vacate thelicensed premises after serving one month notice in writing to the licensor,14) Afer the completion of 35 months the licensor shall terminate the licenceand stop the licencee to use the premises. It (ought to have been if) the licensor (ought to have been licencee ) prefersto use the premises for next 35 months i. e. for 36th to 70th month, they cando so only with increase of 30% in licence fee. That the licence shall be renewed at the option of licencee for a furthersuccessing (ought to have been succeeding) period of 35 months at increasedlicence fee by 30% over the last licence fee paid. "

( 5 ) IT is alleged in the written statement that said agreement in fact is a leaseagreement. The plaintiffs also treating the defendant as tenant terminated the leaseby the notice dated 7/12/1994 (copy at pages 28 to 30) got issued througha counsel. In terms of this notice the lease of defendant was terminated on themidnight of 11/06/1995 and if the defendant thought that its lease starts from 1 stday of August then in that event on the midnight of 31st day of June, 1995. Receipt ofthis notice is admitted by the defendant in written statement.

( 6 ) IT was contended on behalf of defendant that the notice dated 7/12/1994 was waived by plaintiffs. In support of the submission my attention was drawn tothe order dated 15/12/1994 (copy at pages 12 to 18) passed by