Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. No. 4680/2001 along with is Nos. 638/2002 and 4586/2002 all filed by plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC.

2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment of the defendant who was a tenant of the plaintiff in an immovable property apart from making a claim for damages and mesne profits for the continued use and occupation of the premises by the defendant after the termination of the lease of the defendant.

.3. The admitted position is that the plaintiff was the landlord of the defendant in respect of property bearing No. 14, Anand Lok, New Delhi. The parties entered into a registered lease deed dated 18th December 1998 whereby the said property was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,50,000/- for a period of 3 years commencing from 5th November 1998 and ending on 31st October 2001. However, the rent was to be paid with effect from 15th November 1998. The parties also entered into a maintenance agreement on 5th November 1998. The maintenance charges were fixed at Rs. 1,36,000/- per month, which were to be

.paid for the period commencing from 1st November 1998 up to 31st October 2001. The lease agreement and the maintenance agreement were to run concurrently and the maintenance agreement was to automatically stand terminated, once the lease agreement between the parties was terminated and vacant possession of the premises delivered back to the Plaintiff. At the same time, the defendant did not have the right to terminate the maintenance agreement till the defendant delivered the actual physical possession of the tenanted premises to the Plaintiff. As per the lease deed the property consisted of 8 residential flats, each comprising of 3 bed rooms with attached bath rooms, drawing room, dining room, kitchen and one family lounge, together with drive ways, front lawn, backyard etc.

4. According to the Plaintiff the defendant, in breach of the aforesaid lease, started to use the same for non-residential/office purpose. This lead to the issuance of a notice dated 6th September, 1999 by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which is the paramount Lesser of the plot underneath the property in question, requiring the plaintiff to stop misuse and to show cause as to why the perpetual lease of the property be not determined. Upon receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff requested the defendant to stop the non- residential user.

5. The Plaintiff avers that the defendant assured the plaintiff that there is no misuse, as a part of the premises was being used for residential purposes and a part of it was being used for office purposes. The plaintiff avers that in any case, the defendant assured the Plaintiff that in case the DDA objected to mixed use of the premises, such misuse would be stopped. However, allegedly this assurance was not fulfillled. The DDA issued a final show cause notice on 17th December 1999 to the plaintiff stating that the Explanationn furnished by the plaintiff was not satisfactory and granted 15 days time to the plaintiff to stop the misuse of the premises and further stated that if the misuse is not stopped, it would be presumed that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of the perpetual sub-lease and that his lease would consequently stand determined. Resultantly, the plaintiff served notice by registered AD post on 29th March, 2000 upon the defendant, calling upon the defendant to stop the misuse and to remove the additions and alterations and restore the demised premises in the same condition in which the same was let out to the defendant within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which tenancy of the premises was to stand terminated with the expiry of the tenancy month.

.6. Since the notice was not complied with, the plaintiff sent another registered notice dated 11th April 2000 requiring the defendant to vacate the premises upon the expiry of the tenancy month, i.e. 30th April 2000. The plaintiff also