INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2006 which had endorsed the finding in the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2004 passed by the Civil Judge in Suit No.40/2003.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

(i) Plaintiff Atma Ram Builders Pvt. Ltd. is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956. Shri C.M. Chadha was the principal officer and director of the company.

(ii) The plaintiff is the owner of the entire first floor of the premises bearing no.D-18, D-19 and D-20, situated at D-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The erstwhile owner was M/s Prakash Brothers. Plaintiff had purchased this property vide sale deed dated 19.9.1986 Ex.PW-5/1.

(iii) The premises had been let out by the erstwhile owner to the defendant no.1 vide registered lease deed dated 31.12.1982 Ex.PW-3/1 for a period of ten years commencing w.e.f. 1.11.1982 up to 31.10.1992.

(iv) Vide notice dated 5.10.1992 Ex.PW-3/1, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit property by 31.10.1992 as the lease had expired by efflux of time, but to no avail. Present suit was filed seeking a decree of possession.

(v) Defendants contested the suit. It was stated that the plaintiff had filed a similar suit for possession and mesne profits which had been withdrawn unconditionally and as such the present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code'). The suit was also barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Notice dated 5.10.1992 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the „T.P.Act'). Rate of rent of the first floor of the premises was Rs.2000/-; jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred; the suit premises is covered under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the „DRC Act'). The suit has not been filed by an authorized person.

(vi) Six issues were framed by the Trial Court, which inter alia reads as follows:

“ (i) Whether the suit is barred U/S 50 of the DRC Act? OPD (ii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP (iii) Whether the suit has been instituted by a duly authorized person? OPP (iv) Whether the lease has been properly cancelled by notice U/S 106 of Transfer of Property Act? OPP (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit? OPP (vi) Relief.” (vii) Trial Court held that the rent of the premises was Rs.4000/- per month which was evident from the registered lease deed executed between the parties; there was no bar of Section 50 of the DRC Act. The suit had been instituted through a duly authorized person in terms of the resolution Ex.PW-2/2 executed in favour of PW-2 S.M.Chadha. Sale deed of the suit property Ex.PW-5/1 had established the title of the plaintiff. Notice dated 5.10.1992 Ex.PW-1/1 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 31.10.1992 or 1.11.1992 was a valid notice; even otherwise the tenancy had come to an end by efflux of time. Decree of possession of the suit property was passed in favour of the plaintiff. (viii) In appeal, the First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment endorsed the findings of the Trial Court.

3. This is a second appeal which has not yet been admitted. It is at its initial stage. During the pendency of the appeal, an application being C.M. No.2469/2007 under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code has been filed by the respondent seeking a prayer that the appellant be directed to deposit mesne profit @ Rs.197/- per sq. feet per month w.e.f. 1.11.1992 till 30.4.2007 i.e. period from the date of the termination of the tenancy up to the period of the pendency of the appeal. In the course of the arguments addressed before this Court, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent has confined his prayer to the rate of Rs.130/- pe