MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this, order I shall dispose of the two applications under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint, filed by the respective defendants in the abovementioned suits. As the same question of law is involved in both the cases, therefore, a common order is being passed.

I.A. No.14067 of 2007 in CS (OS) No.1422 of 2006

2. The brief facts of the matter as stated in CS (OS) No.1422/2006 are that the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- as arrears of rent for the period from 01.05.2006 to 30.06.2006 in respect of the suit property, also for recovery of rent for the period from 01.07.2006 till the final adjudication of the case @ Rs.10,00,000/- per month and for a decree for Rs.30,000/- as interest for the period from 01.05.2006 to 30.06.2006.

3. The plaintiff is the owner of the building named Atma Ram Mansion (formerly known as Scindia House), Connaught Circus, New Delhi and it had given the suit property admeasuring about 6,000 square feet to the defendant on lease with effect from 01.01.1962 at a monthly rent of Rs.820/- and even today the monthly rent of the said property payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is approximately Rs.1,060/- only, which is very less compared to the present market rate. The plaintiff states that the prevailing market rate of rent for property similar to the suit property, is estimated at Rs.10,00,000/- per month including property tax but excluding other charges.

I.A. No.7775 of 2008 in CS (OS) No.1971 of 2006

4. In the second suit filed by the same very plaintiff for recovery Rs.47,00,000/- as arrears of rent for the period from 01.06.2006 to 30.09.2006 in respect of the suit property further, for recovery of rent @ Rs.10,00,000/- per month for the period from 01.10.2006 till the final adjudication of the suit and for a decree for Rs.7,20,000/- as interest for the period from 01.07.2006 to 30.09.2006 against M/s. Embassy Restaurant.

5. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff is the owner of the building situated at Plot No.3 in D' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Since 1947, the defendant herein has been the tenant of the premises bearing No.11-D, Connaught Place, New Delhi on the ground floor and mezzanine floor and even today the defendant is paying rent @ Rs.312.69 per month. The other grievances raised by the plaintiff are common in both the matters as far as prevailing market rate of rent for property is concerned.

6. It is stated by the plaintiff that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted to protect the tenants from being charged excessive amount of rent, considering the fact that a large number of refugees had come to Delhi after the partition of the country in the year 1947, thus, to protect those refugees from being evicted from their rented accommodation/property and for these reasons Sections 4, 6, and 9 were included in the said Act. But, now the situation has changed and there has been an enormous increase in the value of properties resulting in abuse of this law by the tenants. The Act is meant for the benefit of the weaker section of the society and the defendant in the present case is not eligible for the protection of the said Act. The plaintiff is relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case titled as Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) vs. Union of India & Ors, 95 (2002) DLT 508 (DB) whereby Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Act were held to be unconstitutional and ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in view of striking down of Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Act, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- per month to the plaintiff.

7. In suit No.1422/2006, the plaintiff served a demand notice dated 30.03.2006 upon the defendant asking it to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with effect from 01.05.2006 as the monthly rent because the other tenan