( 1 ) THE plaintiff has Filed the suit for ejectment against the defendant from property known as flat No. 9-B. Hansalaya Building. 1. 5, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 and for recovery of Rs. 4,26,560. 00 on account of damages and mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises from the date of termination of the tenancy till the date of the suit and for mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the properly knownasflatno. 9-B,hansalaya Building, 15,barakhambaroad,newdelhi-l 10001. The aforementioned premises, which has a covered area of 1333 sq. ft. on the 9th floor in Hansalaya Building, as marked "b" in the plan was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as monthly tenant initially at the rate of Rs. 5. 50 per ft. per month i. e. Rs. 7331. 50 per month from 30. 4. 1976 on the terms reduced in writing vide registered lease dated 6. 6. 1977. vide Registered No. 2261, book No-3816 on pages 84-87 dated23. 6. 1977. The said lease deed contemplated the tenancy for aperiod of three years commencing on 30. 4. 1977. The tenancy was thereafter extended twice, once unilaterally by the defendant and second time by mutual consent, each time for a period of three years in terms of the said lease deed. The rate of rent was increased with every renewal. During the first period of three years the rent was Rs. 7331. 50per month from 30. 4. 1977 to 29. 4. 1980 and the for the second period of renewal from 30. 4. 1980 till 29. 4. 1983 was Rs. 8,431. 22per month: and for the nextperiod of renewal from 30. 4. 1983 till 29. 4. 1986 it was Rs. 9,690. 91 per month and for the period from 30. 4. 1986 till 29. 4. 1989, it wasrs. ll,143. 88 per month. On the expiry of the period of tenancy w. e. f. 29. 4. 1986. the defendant negotiated for further renewal of the lease for a period of three years to which the plaintiff was not agreeable. The defendant, therefore, offered to give a solemn undertaking to vacate as soon as new Slate Trading Corporation Building was ready for occupation. The tenancy was then renewed for the last lime in June, 1986. subject to the undertaking of the defendant that it would vacate the said premises as soon as the new Stale Trading Corporation Building at Janpath would he ready for occupation. Such an undertaking was given in writing and communicated to the plaintiff by the letter of the defendant dated 29. 7. 1986. Although the State Trading Corporation Building was got completed around the middle of 1988 but the defendant did not honour its undertaking and did not vacate the said premises. The plaintiff vide her letter dated 19. 12. 1988 requested the defendant to honour its undertaking to vacate the said premises, which was not vacated. However, the defendant unilaterally in violation of the lease deed attempted to renew the tenancy vide its letter dated 6. 1. 1989 purporting to be a three months notice for the renewal of the tenancy in terms of clause 111 (1) of the lease. The defendant could not unilaterally. without the due approval of the plaintiff, renew such lease. The tenancy came to an end by efflux of time on the midnight of 29. 4. 1989 as tenancy was not renewed by the plaintiff. The cheque dated 5. 4. 1989 sent by the defendant forrs. l 1,143. 89 purporting to be rent for the month of April, 1989was returned by the plaintiff as the said cheque was beyond the period of the lease which had come to an end by efflux of time. Although the lease has already been terminated, the plaintiff byway of abundant caution served a notice dated 1. 5. 1989 on the defendant on 2. 5. 1989 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the said premises by 29. 5. 1989. In spile of the service of the notice, the vacant peaceful possession was not handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff and hence the suit for ejectment.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendant is also liable to pay to the pla