REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 07.12.2002, whereby and whereunder a suit for recovery of Rs.4,71,573/- as damages/mesne profits was decreed in favour of the respondents and against the appellant together with future/further mesne profits @ Rs.50/- per sq. ft. from 01.04.1997 till the date of delivery of the possession, i.e., 31.01.1999 together with interest @ 15% per annum on future mesne profits for the aforesaid period.

2. The case of the plaintiffs (the respondents herein) as set out in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are the owners/landlords of Flat No.116, situated on the 11th Floor of a multi-storeyed building, viz., Himalaya House at 23, Curzon Road, New Delhi, measuring 698 sq. ft. The plaintiffs had let out the aforesaid flat to the defendant (the appellant herein) on 01.06.1973 initially at the rate of Rs.1919.50 per month excluding other charges. The plaintiff No.1 had been negotiating and communicating with the defendant to execute a fresh lease deed to enhance the rate of rent of the flat. Pursuant thereto, a letter dated 25.10.1993 was received by the plaintiffs from the defendant whereby the defendant agreed for increase in rent of 10% after every three years from the expiry of the original lease in 1976. The rent with effect from 01.11.1993 was accordingly fixed at Rs.4,467/- per month.

3. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant, after acknowledging its liability, did not fulfil it completely and, instead of paying the amount due in the sum of Rs.1,61,499.50 paid only Rs.65,548.20 in spite of various requests made by the plaintiffs.

4. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that a fresh lease was executed between the parties on a Rs.10/- stamp paper on 27.10.1993 @ Rs.4,467/- with effect from 01.11.1993. The said document being unregistered and not duly stamped had no legal sanctity in law. Thus, the tenancy of the defendant was a monthly tenancy which was terminated by a legal notice issued to the defendant on 25.09.1994, terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.10.1994. The said notice was duly replied by the defendant vide its reply dated 10.10.1994. However, since the defendant did not surrender the possession of the flat despite the receipt of the aforesaid notice of termination, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession and recovery of the amount due, i.e., Rs.95,951.30 in the Court of the District Judge, being Suit No.410/1995.

5. The aforesaid suit was decreed for possession as well as for the recovery of the amount of Rs.95,951.39 in favour of the plaintiffs by the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1997 passed by Shri S.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge, Delhi (as His Lordship then was).

6. The plaintiffs/decree-holders consequently instituted execution proceedings, bearing Execution Application No.55/1997. In the said execution petition, an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC was jointly moved by the parties, duly signed by both the parties. In paragraph 6 of the said application, the terms and conditions of compromise entered into by the parties were set out as follows:-

“6. That the Parties have entered into a compromise, the terms and conditions of the same are given below:- a) Mr. Ashok Trikha, General Manager (Admn.), ITDC is authorized to give undertaking on behalf of the Judgment Debtor Company and enter into a compromise in the Court.

b) The Judgment Debtor Company has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as an interim measure without prejudice to its rights and contentions and any adjustments as per the decision of the Hon’ble Court with regard to the mesne profits payable by the Judgment Debtor Company.

c) That admittedly the Plaintiffs had not received the rent for the months of May, June and July 1995. The copy of the Cheques have been filed by the Defendant Company in the Suit for damages. The total amount comes 38 months x 15,0