T. S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is yet another case in which a tenant in occupation of the demised premises has suffered a decree for eviction as no triable issue arose from the pleadings of the parties. Since the tenancy in question was not protected under the Rent Control Act, the validity of the notice issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was by far the only defence seriously urged before the court below. A somewhat desperate plea suggesting that the plaintiff had not signed the plaint was also urged but repelled by the trial court while decreeing the suit to the extent it related to delivery of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. The appellant has assailed the validity of the said judgment and decree before us in the present appeal.

( 2 ) A portion of the property bearing No. 58 situate on the Ring road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi was let out to the defendant appellant herein in terms of a lease deed executed on 6th July, 2000. Monthly rental of rs. 30,000/- settled between the parties was payable to the landlord by the 10th of every calender month. Although the lease deed purported to create a tenancy for a period of three years, yet since the document was not duly registered, the tenancy remained a month to month tenancy which was terminated by a notice dated 12. 01. 2003, with effect from the midnight of 31. 01. 2003. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises, a suit for possession by eviction of the defendant tenant became necessary in which apart from the relief of possession, the plaintiff claimed rent @ Rs. 30,000/- for the period 01. 01. 2003 to 31. 01. 2003 and mesne profits/damages w. e. f. 31. 01. 2003 @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per month till peaceful possession of the premises was surrendered and handed over by the tenant.

( 3 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendant, it was inter alia alleged that the plaint had not been signed and verified by the plaintiff as he was bed ridden for two years preceding the institution of the suit. It was also alleged that the notice of termination was not issued under the instructions of the plaintiff. Receipt of the notice was, however, admitted but the validity thereof questioned and a prayer for dismissal of the suit on that account made by the defendant.

( 4 ) BEFORE the suit could proceed to trial, the plaintiff made an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for a judgment on admissions. This application was unsuccessfully opposed by the defendant before the trial court who agreed with the plaintiff that the ownership of the suit property being admitted by the defendant and so also the receipt of the notice terminating its tenancy, the defendant had no defence to the suit insofar as the same related to a prayer for possession of the demised premises. The suit was accordingly decreed to that extent relying upon the decisions of this court in M/s S. L. Associates Pvt. Ltd. Versus Karnataka Handloom Dev Corporation Ltd. 1996 5 AD (Delhi) 473, Delhi Jal Board Versus Surendra P. Malik 2003 (68) DRJ 284, Sona devi and Another Versus Puran Chand Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (54) DRJ 850 and I. T. D. C. Ltd. Versus M/s Chander Pal Sood and Son 2001 (1) AD (Delhi) 353.

( 5 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Nigam made a three fold submission before us. Firstly he contended that the plaintiff had not signed the plaint. According to him, someone else had impersonated for the plaintiff which fact was according to Mr. Nigam evident from a comparison of the signatures found on the lease deed with those on the plaint. Alternatively, he submitted that the trial court was in error in having passed a decree under order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC disregarding the fact that there were factual inaccuracies in the averments made in the said application. He submitted that while it was open to the trial court to pass a decree on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 suo motu, the decree in the instant case was not based on the suo motu exercise of that