JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present suit is filed seeking a decree of possession, recovery of damages and permanent injunction pertaining to property No. A-14, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi admeasuring 4617.67 sq. yards. It is the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that the said suit property was purchased from the defendant on payment of full sale consideration of Rs. 4 crores accompanied by transfer of symbolic possession and execution of alleged transfer documents including registered agreement to sell (affixing stamp duty of Rs. 30 lacs), registered power of attorney, registered Will, registered indemnity bond, etc. on 30th December, 2004. It is further averred that at the time of sale, the defendant requested to the plaintiff that it would be willing to take the suit property on rent for a period of three years. The request of the defendant was acceded to and vide a separate lease agreement dated 30th December, 2004 w.e.f. 01.01.2005 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The monthly rent of Rs. 14,25,000/-was agreed upon. The defendant also deposited with the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 42,75,000/-as an interest free security deposit refundable within 30 days of the vacation of the suit property. A separate MOU was also entered into on the same date i.e. 30.12.2004 giving to the defendant an option to buy back the suit property on a consideration to be mutually agreed upon between the parties.

2. It is further averred that on expiry of the lease period of 3 years, the defendant further requested the plaintiff to extend the lease for a period of 11 months to help it to locate/identify/finalize suitable/alternative premises. Hence, a fresh lease agreement dated 01.01.2008 on an enhanced lease rent of Rs. 18,50,000/-besides service tax on rent or any other tax that may be applicable was executed. An MOU was also executed on the same date further giving an option to the defendant to buy back the property on a consideration to be mutually agreed upon between the parties. The defendant was also liable to pay electricity and water charges, municipal tax, levies and charges, ground rent etc. It was specifically agreed that the lease is not extendable beyond the period of 11 months. It is stated that all along this period of lease, namely, 01.01.2005 till 30.11.2008, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff as the owner of the suit property.

3. It is further averred that the lease period of 11 months expired by efflux of time on 30.11.2008. However, the plaintiff on 22.09.2008 in reply to the defendants letter dated 25.08.2008 reminded the defendant to vacate and hand over physical possession of the suit property by 30.11.2008. Similar letters were written by the plaintiff on 18.10.2008, 18.11.2008 and 27.11.2008. The plaintiff received on 28.11.2008 a letter dated 25.11.2008 from the defendant expressing its desire to purchase the property. It is averred that despite the visit of the authorized representative of the plaintiff for taking the vacant physical possession of the suit property, the defendant failed to do the needful. It is averred that no doubt MOU dated 01.01.2008 gives an option to the defendant to purchase the property but this is on a consideration to be mutually agreed upon by the owners and the occupants. It is averred that as there had been no consensus on the consideration, the defendant did not, at any point of time acquire any right to purchase the suit property. As the defendant failed to vacate the suit property, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 12.12.2008 requiring the defendant to vacate the suit property on expiry of 15 days of the receipt of the notice or latest by 31.12.2008. In this notice it was also made clear that in terms of the lease agreement, the defendant is also liable to pay damages @ Rs. 50,000/-per day in addition to the rent of Rs. 18,50,000/-per month being the agreed rent and other agreed charges for the period of stay beyon