Present appeal has been filed by appellant against the impugned order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which suit filed by respondent for possession was decreed and it was also held that respondent is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and damages @ Rs.50,000/- p.m. till the possession of the suit is handed over to him. In addition, respondent was also entitled to interest @ 15% per annum, on the said amount, pendentelite and future till realization.

2. The case of respondent is that he has let out a part of premises constructed on Plot No.E-41/4 (Block-E), Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant. Appellant made defaults in making payment of the rent as some of the cheques issued were dishonoured. Later on, he paid after repeated requests. Appellant did not make payment for the month of May, June and July, 2008 despite repeated requests and even after service of legal notice dated 8th July, 2008 vide which the tenancy of appellant was terminated and he was directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the suit premises in question as well as payment of the due rent but he failed to do so. 3. Appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the premises in question w.e.f. 1st August, 2008 and as such he is liable to pay damages/mesne profits @ Rs.2 lacs p.m. w.e.f. 1st August, 2008, which is the prevailing rate of rent of such like premises in the area. A legal notice dated 6th August, 2008, to this effect was served upon the appellant but the same was not complied with.

4. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it is stated that appellant is taking every possible care that the rent is received by respondent on time. Respondent was and is ready and willing to pay the said rent for three months i.e. for May, June and July, 2008 and there is no violation of the lease deed.

5. Further, it is stated that appellant, vide letter dated 4th March and 2nd April, 2008, communicated to the respondent about the tariff violation issued by enforcement office of BSES Rajdhani Ltd. of Rs. 7.58 lacs for the period of September, 2006 to March, 2007. The appellant is not liable to pay any such amount, as the said demand does not pertain to the period of the lease of the appellant. The appellant approached this Court seeking quashing of the said demand of BSES. 6. It is denied that appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the premises w.e.f. 1st August, 2008 and as such he is not liable to pay damages/mesne profits. It is further stated that legal notice dated 6th August, 2008 was never received by respondent. Regarding notice dated 8th July, 2008, there is no specific denial.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it was the respondent who refused to receive the rent. Appellant did not violate any conditions laid down in the lease deed and as such termination of the lease deed is bad in law. 8. It is also contended that no legal notice has been received by the appellant and it is a matter of evidence as to whether the lease has been terminated in accordance with the provisions of law. It is further contended that, there has been no admission on the part of the appellant and as such, trial court ought not to have passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. 9. It is also contended that as per lease deed, there is no termination clause and lease is valid till 4th June, 2013 and as such the impugned order passed by the trial court is contrary to law. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of its contention cited certain judgments of Supreme Court. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100, it was held;

“Failure to prove a defence does not amount to an admission and nor does it reverse or discharge the burden of proof.” 11. In Balraj Taneja & Anr. v. Sunil Madan & Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 396, it was held; “Though a fact stated in the plaint may be