1. By this order, I shall dispose of I.A. No. 1354/2009 filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC? for brevity).

2. Brief facts for the purpose of deciding the present application are that as per plaintiff, the plaintiff had leased out 714 sq. metres of its property on the 7th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „suit property?) to the defendant vide registered lease deed dated 3rd February, 2003 for a period of 54 months, expiring on 31st July, 2007. Despite efflux of time, the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property and for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation. The defendant has been in unauthorized occupation of the suit property since 31st July, 2007.

3. It is the plaintiff?s submission that the defendant did not opt for renewal of the lease deed and is therefore not entitled to the same. The plaintiff offered the prevalent rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. per month to the defendant, but the defendant instead filed CS (OS) No. 1321/2007 against the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement in the lease that provided for renewal of lease, hoping to take advantage of the fact that similar premises would be available to it for less than Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. per month.

4. The defendant?s case, concisely stated is that, inter alia, the lease in question is for a term of nine years. . The defendant asserts that as per Clause 7(d) of the registered lease deed, it opted for renewal of the said lease for the period from 1st August, 2007 to 31st January, 2012. Both parties acted on the furtherance of the said renewal but the plaintiff refused to formally execute the renewal due to mala fide reasons, which resulted in the filing of CS (OS) No. 1321/2007 by the defendant for specific performance of the said renewal which is pending before this Court wherein the defendant has filed an application under Section 151 CPC being IA No.2967/2009 for consolidation of both the matters. The defendant also asserts that the provision made in the lease agreement for a notice in writing as stipulated in Clause 7 for renewal of the lease deed is devoid of any meaning, the plaintiff having accepted advance amount of security and bank guarantee from the defendant for the subsequent period and various other acts/actions on part of the parties which clearly show that the plaintiff is not entitled to raise any controversy about the continuation of the lease for a second term of 54 months.

5. The following issues were framed : “(i) Whether the defendant is entitled to continue in possession of the suit premises after expiry of the registered lease deed dated 3.2.2003? (ii) In case Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ejectment against the defendant? (v) What is the effect of Clause 7(d) of the registered lease deed dated 3.2.2003?”

6. By the present application, the plaintiff has prayed that a decree of ejectment be passed in its favour and against the defendant in view of certain admissions made by the defendant on 13th March, 2008. It is the plaintiff?s contention that a reading of Issue Nos. (i), (ii) and (v) of the Issues framed by this court on 1st December, 2008 shows that the registered lease deed of the suit property was admitted by the parties and the relief of ejectment of the defendant ought to be granted after/on the interpretation of the said document. The said issues are pertaining to the relief of possession of the suit property and are based on the interpretation of an admitted document. Further, once terms of a document have been reduced into the form of a document like the registered lease deed in the present case, no evidence is required to be produced to prove the terms of such contract/grant except