MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. Vide order dated 25.04.2008, the defence of the defendant has been struck off. In the counter claim being Counter Claim no.49 of 2008, the following preliminary issue was framed on 25.04.2008 :- “Whether the counter claim filed by the defendant is liable to be rejected being barred under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC? OPD.”

2. As per the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff company is the lessee of the property bearing no.3, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi comprising entire ground floor except the garage and entire basement of the said property and the said property was initially leased to the plaintiff by the lessor, M/s. Sushant Builders Pvt. Ltd., B-109, Defence Colony, New Delhi vide lease deed dated 14.03.2003, duly registered on 17.03.2003 as registration no.2040 in book No.I, Vol.no.3268 at page nos.193 to 199 with the office of the Registrar-V, New Delhi.

3. Thereafter M/s. Sushant Builders Pvt. Ltd. sold the property to one M/s. Prime Time [India] Limited and had attorned the tenancy in their favour. The plaintiff is having the rights to further sublet the leased property and the lease of the plaintiff is subsisting and valid till date.

4. It is further stated that the defendant is a limited company under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business under the name and style of M/s. Senior Media Ltd., 1/1, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi-110021.

5. The plaintiff vide a licence agreement dated 09.05.2005 gave on licence the property no.3, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi comprising the entire ground floor except the garage and the entire basement of the said property to the defendant and the defendant agreed to pay the usage charges @ Rs.3,60,000/- p.m. for a minimum usage of 225 hours in a calendar month and Rs.4,00,000/- p.m. being the maximum limit of usage charges subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the agreement. As per the said agreement, the licence commenced from 9th day of each calendar month and ends on the 8th day of the next month.

6. It is further stated that under the said agreement, the defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.10 lacs as an interest free refundable deposit vide cheque no.412601 drawn on Syndicate Bank, no.2, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

7. The defendant has not been regular in paying its monthly usage charges and despite repeated requests, the defendant has not provided the statement of accounts stating the details of the usage charges.

8. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had issued four cheques towards payment of the monthly usage charges to the tune of Rs.2,84,724/- each dated 14.03.2006, 14.04.2006, 14.05.2006 and 14.06.2006 respectively, which were returned as dishonoured by the bankers of the defendant and was in complete disregard and breach of the terms of the licence as agreed by the defendant.

9. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant being the licensee under the plaintiff in respect of the said premises has not paid the usage charges of the premises w.e.f. March, 2006 which is in arrears and have also failed to provide the statement of monthly usage charges as per the terms and conditions as stated in the agreement. Despite the repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant is deliberately neither paying the monthly usage charges nor the arrears nor providing the statement of accounts to the plaintiff.

10. In view of the above circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession, arrears of usage charges along with pendente lite and future interest and for mesne profits, damages and costs etc against the defendant.

11. The plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC being IA no.11084/2006 was allowed in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 19.03.2007 wherein the defendant was directed to make the payment of use and occupation charges to the plaintiff @ Rs.3,60,000/-. The defendant was granted four weeks’ time to deposit the arrears and furth