( 1 )

( 2 ) ARGUMENTS in the appeal were heard, on 18th March, 1999 and judgment reserved. On conclusion of arguments, it was suggested to learned counsel for the parties to explore the possibility of an out of Court settlement. It appears that such a settlement has not been arrived at. Consequently, we proceed to deliver judgment.

( 3 ) THE Appellant came into possession of the suit premises, namely, Flat No. 703, 7th Floor, Archana Cinema Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi by virtue of a lease deed dated 1st May, 1981 which expired on 30th April, 1984. Thereafter, the partics entered into a registered lease deed dated 17th July, 1984 effective from 1st May, 1984. Clause 3 and Clause 4 of the lease deed have a material bearing on this appeal and these clauses read as follows:

"3. That the lease shall be of a continuous nature and shall continue till revoked by both the parlies by mutual consent subject to compliance of terms and conditions of lease and that of statutory provision applicable to leased property.

4. That rent and service charges for common facilities shall automatically stand increased by 15% respectively after expiry of every three years commencing from 1st May, 1987. It is clarified that enhancement of 15% shall be computed on the rent and service charges which was being paid during earlier period of three years on the expiry of which the rent and service charges are enhanced. "

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the lease was continued beyond the initial period of three years and the Appellant increased the rent of the suit premises by 15% every three years, that is in May 1990, 1993 and 1996. However, non of these extensions were through a registered instrument.

( 5 ) BY a notice dated 2nd April, 1997, the Respondent terminated the tenancy of the Appellant with effect from the "last hours of 31st May, 1997 or in the alternative on the last hours of 1st June, 1997".

( 6 ) IN spite of the termination of the tenancy, the Appellant continued in possession and occupation of the suit premises and the Respondent continued to accept the rent tendered by the Appellant. Therefore, to avoid any plea of waiver, the Respondent once again terminated the tenancy of the Appellant by a notice dated 5th November, 1997. This termination was with effect from the "last hours of 30th November, 1997 or in the alternative last hours of 1st December, 1997. "

( 7 ) SINCE, the Appellant did not hand over possession of the suit premises, the Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 94/1998 in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, praying, inter alia. for a decree for possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent.

( 8 ) THE suit was contested by the Appellant who filed a written statement wherein it was submitted by way of preliminary objection that the lease between the parties is continuous and is in perpetuity. As such, it was contended that the tenancy is not on a month to month basis. It was also submilled that the lease can only be terminated by mutual consent of both the partics. A reply on merits was also filed.

( 9 ) THE Respondent filed its replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint.

( 10 ) BEFORE issues were struck, the Respondent moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) wherein it was prayed, inter alia, that in view of the admissions made by the Appellant, there is no issue which is required to he determined nor is any evidence required to be led and consequently a decree of possession may be passed in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.

( 11 ) THE application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the Respondent was contested by the Appellant and thereafter arguments were heard by the learned Additional District judge.

( 12 ) BY the impugned judgment and decree dated 11th December, 1998, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that t