RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 15.12.2010 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.191/2007 (ID No.02401C0235462007) filed by the respondents / plaintiffs) holding the rent / mesne profits payable by the appellants / defendants to the respondents / plaintiffs till 30.06.2008 @ Rs.60,000/- per month and @ Rs.6,000/- per day with effect from 01.07.2008 to 12.02.2009 with interest at 16%, without specifying from which date to which date. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of 909 days delay in re-filing the same.

2. Notice of the appeal and of the application for condonation of delay was issued and conditional stay granted and in response whereto a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is reported to have been deposited in this Court. The appeal was on 02.12.2013 dismissed in default of appearance of the appellants / defendants. The appellants / defendants filed an application for restoration and notice whereof was issued for yesterday. The counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs appeared and stated that though as per dicta of this Court in Brij Mohan Vs. Sunita 166 (2010) DLT 537, no case for condonation of long delay in re-filing the appeal is made out but subject to the appeal itself being heard, he has no objection to the appeal being restored to its original position and the delay in re-filing being condoned.

3. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the appeal is restored to its original position and the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The counsels have been heard and the Trial Court record requisitioned in this Court perused.

5. The respondents / plaintiffs on 06.03.2007 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, for ejectment of the appellants / defendants from an area of 3800 sq. fts. on the ground floor of property No.C-254, Maya Puri, Phase-II, New Delhi let out by the respondents / plaintiffs to the appellants / defendants, pleading:

(i) that the said premises were let out for a period of two years with effect from 01.07.2006 vide three lease deeds, two dated 28.08.2006 and duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi and the third dated 01.09.2006, duly attested by Notary Public, on total lease charges of Rs.60,000/- per month i.e. Rs.20,000/- per month under each of the three leases;

(ii) that the appellants / defendants had failed to pay the entire legally recoverable arrears of rent and had paid rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month only instead of at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month;

(iii) that the lease deeds provided for termination of the lease in the event of violation of any of the terms thereof;

(iv) that the respondents / plaintiffs vide notice dated 08.01.2007 determined the tenancy of the appellants / defendants with effect from 28.02.2007 and called upon the appellants / defendants to deliver possession of the premises;

(v) though the said notice was duly served on the appellants / defendants but no reply was given thereto;

(vi) that the possession of the appellants / defendants of the premises with effect from 01.03.2007 was thus unauthorized and the respondents / plaintiffs in accordance with the lease deeds were entitled to recover mesne profits / damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per day;

accordingly, the suit for ejectment / recovery of possession and for recovery, i) of arrears of rent and mesne profits till 28.02.2007 of Rs.2,81,400/-; and, ii) of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation with effect from 01.03.2007 till the date of delivery of possession at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per day, together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit and till realization was filed.

6. The appellants / defendants contested the suit, by filing a written statement, on the grounds:

(A) admitting only the two registered lease deeds each of which provided for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per mon