A notice to quit must be construed liberally and not to be read in a hyper critical manner. The intention to terminate tenancy must be clear. A notice to quit need not be worded with accuracy.

( 1 ) AKASH Ganga Builders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. has assailed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent, granting decree of possession and mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE impugned judgment and decree have been assailed primarily on the grounds: (i) That the notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the T. P. Act) dated 7th May,1996 was not valid. Hence in the absence of valid notice decree could not have been passed, (ii) That as per oral agreement the period of tenancy could be extended at the option of the lessee (appellant herein ). The appellant/lessee exercised that option seeking extension of lease for another period of ten years. Since the tenancy was subsisting it could not have terminated by efflux of time. (iii) That there was no admissions made by the appellant on the basis of which decree could be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and finally (iv) the amount of rent had already been paid in excess to the respondent, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any mesne profit rather the excess amount already paid was required to be refunded or adjusted for future rent.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge raised, we may have a quick glance to the facts relevant for the determination of the same. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents herein are the owners/landlords of the property bearing flat No. 407, Inder Prakash Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi, measuring super area 726 sq. ft. This premises was let out to the present appellant on 28th June, 1990 by an unregistered lease deed. Premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 24. 00 per sq. ft. It was initially let out for a period of three years. The monthly rent worked out to Rs. 17,424. 00 payable in advance. The initial lease period expired in June,1993. The parties by exchange of letters extended the period of tenancy for another period of three years beginning from 1st July, 1993. The rent was enhanced by 20% over and above the existing rent and made it to Rs. 28. 80 paise per sq. ft. per month. On calculation it worked out to Rs. 20,910. 00 per month. That the period of lease expired by efflux of time on 30th June,1996. However as an abundant caution tenancy was also terminated by a legal notice. The rent for the period from June,1996 and seven days of July,1996 had not been paid. The appellant was also to pay proportionate amount of maintenance charges in lieu of services provided by the builders. Hence the appellant was called upon to pay the outstanding amounts towards maintenance charges. It was also pleaded that the prevalent market rent of such like premises was Rs. 270. 00 per sq. ft. per month. Thus the respondent (plaintiff before trial court) claimed damages of Rs. 1,63,350. 00 for 25 days. The other ground taken was that the appellant herein had without the consent of the respondent/landlord sub-let the tenanted premises.

( 4 ) THE appellant herein in its defence had taken the plea that the notice alleged to be under Section 106 T. P. Act was not a valid notice. That no breach of the terms of the lease had been committed, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The suit suffered from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover there did not exist any privity of contract between the plaintiff No. 1 HUF and the defendant. The premises, in fact was leased out by Shri G. P. Seth and Smt. Sheeba Seth fora period of three years in 1990 and not by a HUF. Lease was given orally on the condition that it could be extended in accordance with the. wishes and desire of the lessee but by increasing rent at the rate of 10% after every three years. After the expiry of three years, lease was extended orally by increasing rent at the rate of 10%. Thereafter on the expiry of further three years, the lease was to get automatically revived. It was only when the rent was not enhanced that the