( 1 ) IN this appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 19th November, 1997 passed by the trial court. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Addl. District Judge Delhi decreed the suit for possession filed by the respondents against the appellant herein with respect to premises described as flat No. 611, 6th floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi. The trial court further passed a decree for mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 2,38,686. 00 covering the period from 1st July, 1994 till 31st January, 1995 along with interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit till recovery. The decree further directs that the defendant (appellant herein) will pay mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs. 100. 00 per sq. ft. per month with effect from the date of institution of the suit till handing over possession of the premises.

( 2 ) THE respondent had filed a caveat through Shri Vijay Kishan, Advocate. Therefore, counsel for both the parties appeared at the time of hearing of this appeal. The counsel for the parties also placed copies of the pleadings in the suit as well as copies of the relevant documents and oral evidence to facilitate hearing of this appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following points at the time of hearing of the appeal.

1. Service of notice of termination of tenancy is denied.

2. The notice relied upon by the plaintiff/respondent as the notice of termination of tenancy dated 3rd June, 1994 being Ex. PW-2/2 does not give clear 15 days time ending with the month of tenancy and, therefore, the notice is invalid.

3. The lease agreement between the parties stood renewed and, therefore, the tenancy could not be terminated before the expire of the renewed period.

4. The mense profits have been awarded at highly excessive rates.

1. SERVICE OF NOTICE

ACCORDING to the plaintiffs notice dated 3rd June, 1994 was served by the plaintiff on the defendant terminating its tenancy. The defendant donied service of notice of termination of tenancy. One of the plaintiffs Shri J. N. Puri appeared as PW-2 and stated that the plaintiff had sent a notice dated 3rd June, 1994 through their advocate terminating the tenancy of the defendant appellant w. e. f. 30th June, 1994. He proved a copy of the notice as Ex. PW-2/2 and the postal receipt as Ex. PW-2/3. He stated that the said notice had been duly served on the defendant. He admitted that the AD card was not received by them. He further stated that it was also not traceable in the office of their advocate. It appears that the appellant is trying to capitalise on the non-availability of the AD card and the entire argument has been built up on that basis. As against this evidence of the plaintiffs regarding service of notice, the stand of the appellant in the written statement statement and in the evidence of its witness DW-1 P. T. Mittal, Company Secretary, is that of bare denial of receipt of notice. However, Mr. P. T. MITTAL. the Company Secretary while appearing as a witness for the defendant admitted that the address of the defendant given on the notice Ex. PW-2/2 was correct. In view of this admission about the address given on the notice being correct and in view of Ex-PW-2/3 which is a postal receipt establishing despatch of notice through post, the plaintiff has successfully discharged the onus of service of notice. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent plaintiff should have supremed evidence from the post office to established as to on whom and on what date the notice was served and in the absence of such evidence, it was submitted, that the service of notice is not established. We are unable to agree with this contention raised on behalf of the appellant. The requirement of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is fully met in the facts and circumstances