VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE Plaintiff has initiated this Suit for eviction, possession, injunction mesne profits and damages. Pleadings have been completed. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the Court may "pass a judgment on admission in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of the prayer clause contained in the Suit". It cannot even be imagined how a decree for mesne profits can justifiably be granted at this stage since neither an 'admission' nor cogent evidence is available. In the interest of justice, therefore, I shall at the present moment restrict the prayer to the claim for possession/eviction alone.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs are the owners of plot No. 120 B, Sainik Farms, New Delh. The Plaint states that the Defendant was inducted as a licensee for a term of eleven months which expired on 24. 7. 1998. This period is stated to have been renewed by mutual agreement for further period of eleven months each on the increased licence fee of Rs. 18,000. 00 per month and thereafter Rs. 22,000. 4 till April 2001. It is admitted that the Defendant had paid licence fee of Rs. 22,000. 00 per month till february 2001.

( 3 ) CONSEQUENT upon the electricity connection - in the suit premises having been disconnected due to non-payment of the Bills by the" Defendant, omp No. 286/2003 and OMP No. 54/2004 came to be filed by him. In these proceedings Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. recorded on 27. 4. 2004 that - "it is agreed to by the counsel appearing for the parties that Mr. Kuldeep Singh, the Petitioner in OMP No. 54/2004 would pay to the Respondents an amount of Rs. 20,000. 00 per month from March 2001 till date and also for the future months till an appropriate proceeding is taken in accordance with law. " (underlining supplied) It will be worthy to underscore firstly that these orders were passed before the issuance of three legal notices, and secondly that the amount fixed was not termed either as rent or damages.

( 4 ) THE Plaintiff caused to be issued legal notices dated 24. 9. 2004 and 17. 3. 2005; the latter -was replied to by the Defendant in terms of his advocates' letter dated 31. 3. 2005. Thereafter yet another legal notice dated 30. 9. 2005 was despatched which also was replied to by the Advocate of the defendant by letter

dated 17. 10. 2005, wherein it has been stated that the notice has been issued keeping in view the Defendant's admission that he is in possession of the premises "on month to month tenancy. " The Defendant was called upon, as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act to handover possession of the premises within a period of fifteen days from the receipt thereof. According to the Defendant's Advocate this notice was received by the Defendant on 3. 10. 2005. The present Suit had already been filed on 9th September, 2005.

( 5 ) IT will be evident that the third notice dated 30. 9. 2005 has been issued for totally inexplicable reasons, after the filing of the Suit. Therefore, one would have to revert to the previous notices issued by the Plaintiff to the defendant in order to ascertain whether the provisions of law have been met. Mr. Puri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant contends that the first notice dated 24. 9. 2004 cannot provide the requisite cause of action for the filing of the present Suit as it is not a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Para 8 thereof reads as follows:

"therefore, under the facts and circumstances enumerated above and by way of abundant caution and without prejudice to any such previous notice served on you, whether orally or impliedly or otherwise by our client or her predecessor, our client revokes your license through this legal notice, and directs you to return the permissive possession of the licensed property to our client within a period of 15 days from the date