( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed on 3rd April, 1999 by Ms. Manju Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi granting a decree for possession, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant in respect of the property bearing Plot No. B-2, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi (for short the suit premises) and a decree of mense profits amounting to Rs. 30,000. 00 @ Rs. 15,000. 00 p. m. for months of March and April, 1997. Arguments were heard in the appeal and judgment was reserved. There is no formal order for admission.

( 2 )

( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 5th May, 1997 the respondent-landlord filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against the appellant-tenant alleging therein that it was a registered partnership firm and owner/landlord of the suit premises, which were let out to the appellant-tenant bank vide registered lease deed dated 4th June, 1979 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,840. 20 for a period 11 months. Thereafter, as per the terms contained in another unregistered lease agreement dated 26th June, 1979, the respondent permitted the appellant-tenant to retain the suit premises, after the initial period of 11 months. Since the second unregistered lease agreement was for a period of more than one year, as per law, the tenancy has to be construed on month to month basis. The rent of the premises was increased to Rs. 5,330. 00 per month with effect from June 1989 and the appellant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 95,954. 76 w. e. f. 1st August, 1995 to 31. 1. 1997. The respondent-landlord through registered A. D. notice dated 31. 1. 1997 terminated the tenancy of the appellant w. e. f. 28th February, 1997, (or on the midnight of 3rd March, 1997 in the event of appellant considering that its tenancy commences from 4th day of each English Calender month ). As the tenant failed to deliver physical vacant possession of the suit premises despite expiry of the period of notice to quit, the suit was filed for possession and for recovery of damages @ Rs. 1,25,000. 00 per month for its unauthorised use and occupation w. e. f. 1st March, 1997/4th March, 1997, till the date of actual delivery of possession.

( 4 ) APPELLANT-TENANT bank filed a written statement, contesting the said suit inter-alia pleading therein, that the respondent had been regularly accepting rent even after serving the alleged notice to quit; that the notice was defective and illegal and that the suit was premature and lease was subsisting. It was further pleaded that rent was paid to the respondent in the sum of Rs. 1,49,262. 96 and Rs. 5,303. 82 (vide pay orders dated 13. 12. 97 and dated 1. 1. 98 respectively) which were duly acknowledged, for the period from September, 1995 to January, 1998.

( 5 ) AFTER the pleadings were completed, respondent/landlord filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) praying for a decree of possession of the suit premises, on the basis of the admissions in the written statement of the appellant-tenant. In reply the appellant/tenant reiterated that its tenancy was continuing, as the respondent-landlord had accepted the rent even after sending the alleged notice to quit dated 31st January, 1997 and filing of the suit. It was also pleaded that rent of the suit premises was attached under Section 112 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (for short MCD) and therefore, the rent could not be paid earlier to the respondent/landlord earlier.

( 6 ) LEARNED trial court after hearing the arguments passed impugned judgment and decree. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record.

( 7 ) SHRI Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for the appellant/tenant firstly argued an application (CM No. 1342/99), moved in the appeal, purportedly under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code seeking to place on record (a) communi