VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. This Appeal assails the Order dated 18.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge passing a Decree for possession predicated on the Plaintiff?s Application, IA No.3384/2008 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC? for short). The learned Single Judge has concluded “that the written statement contains unambiguous admissions about the lawful tenancy of the defendant having expired on 31-12-2004; there has been no extension of the lease arrangement, which ended by efflux of time, and the plaintiff sent notices asking the defendant to vacate the premises. The plaintiff is, in this court?s view, clearly entitled to the decree of possession he seeks, through the present application. In view of these findings, the relief sought in the other application is rendered infructuous; the plaintiff would have to prove his entitlement to damages; and the amount he seeks as a decree, for the purpose”.

2. The learned Single Judge has rejected the Application of the Plaintiff, being IA No.3385/2008 moved simultaneously with the above mentioned application, praying for mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant to deposit a sum of Rupees 1,79,76,000/-.

3. The Appellant?s case is that it had entered the demised premises by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2001 for taking on lease immovable property, being S-6, Green Park Extension, New Delhi from M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Bishan Chand, Clause 1 of which mentions that the Lease will be for a period of nine years renewable every three years with an escalation of fifteen per cent in the rent every three years. An interest free refundable security deposit equivalent to four months rental was to be paid by the Appellant; and a detailed Lease Deed was to be executed. It is indeed unfortunate that copies of the said Lease Deed have not been filed alongwith the Appeal, whereas a photocopy of an unregistered Lease Deed dated 8.1.2008 on inadequate stamp paper has been filed. On the first date of hearing, Mr. J.C. Mahindroo, learned counsel for the Appellant had categorically stated that the Lease Deed dated 6.6.2002 was not registered; we had recorded this statement. On summoning the Trial Court records, we find this statement to be incorrect as the original duly registered Lease Deed, properly engrossed on the Stamp Paper of Rs.1,41,000/- was on the trial Court record. Even if we are to ignore the explicit terms of the later document dated 6.6.2002, the document dated 8.1.2002 is inadmissible in evidence, being an unregistered Lease Deed on a Stamp Paper of Rupees fifty only.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant has repeated several times that the Appellant had incurred an expense of Rupees 4.4 crores in renovating the demised premises for purposes of running a restaurant-cum-bar called Fahrenheit. The Appellant has itself stated that on 7.6.2002 its Lessor M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Bishan Chand had sold the property to Smt. Raj Rani Sethi. The Trial Court records contain the original Sale Deed by which this transaction was effected. The Appellant next pleads that Smt. Raj Rani Sethi had on 27.9.2002 entered into an Agreement to Sell on 27.9.2002 with Mangal Sain Mittal and Sons, HUF, viz. the Respondent before us. The Appellant?s case is that Shri Mangal Sain Mittal started creating mischief with a view to placing impediments for the Appellant “for running the said restaurant with the result that the entire business of restaurant and bar came to a standstill since April, 2004”. It is next pleaded that in July, 2006 the Appellant agreed to “purchase the said property for a consideration of Rupees 50 lac and paid Rupees 6 lac in advance to Smt. Raj Rani Sethi through Shri Mangal Sain Mittal for the said deal.” A Receipt for this alleged transaction is not available. The Appellant pleads that Pay-Orders for Rupees 20 lac each were prepared along with cheques for an additional amount of Rupees 10 lac in the name of S/Shri B.L. Mittal and M.S.