Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge. We shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature before the learned Single Judge.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts for the purpose of adjudicating the regular first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated January 24, 2014 which has been challenged in RFA (OS) No.55/2014, and the order dated February 18, 2014 passed in Execution Petition No.56/2014 whereunder the learned Single Judge has directed execution of the decree dated January 24, 2014 with a direction that police aid shall be given to the bailiff to execute the decree, which order has been challenged in FAO (OS) No.117/2014, are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession and damages for unauthorized use and occupation in respect of 45% of the eastern part of the ground floor of property bearing Municipal No.10, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (herein after referred to as the ‘Suit Premises’). The first appellant : Deluxe Dentelles (P) Ltd. was impleaded as defendant No.1 and Ms.Adarsh Gill the Managing Director of defendant No.1 was impleaded as defendant No.2.

3. In the plaint it was, inter-alia, pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, the erstwhile owner whereof was Ms.Neeta Mehra who under an unregistered lease agreement dated November 21, 1996 let out the suit property to defendant No.1 for a period of 11 years and 11 months with the initial rent in sum of Rs. 2,650/- per month which was to be enhanced by 10% every three years and that so computing the rent i.e. increasing the same by 10% every three years rent in advance for the entire duration in sum of Rs. 3,73,340/- was paid to Ms. Neeta Mehra and tax at source in sum of Rs. 65,884/- was deducted, meaning thereby to the credit of Ms. Neeta Mehra rent payable for the entire duration of the lease was paid. In other words the enhanced rent in sum of Rs. 3,527/- per month stood paid for the lease period post November 17, 2008. It was pleaded that since the lease-deed dated November 21, 1999 was not registered, the tenancy had to be treated in law as one from month to month, determinable by a notice giving 15 days to the tenant to vacate. Vide registered sale-deed dated August 14, 2000 the plaintiff purchased the property at Jor Bagh from Ms.Neeta Mehra and thus became the lawful owner of the suit property. Vide notice dated May 03, 2010, the plaintiff determined the tenancy and since possession was not delivered, the continued retention of the suit premises was illegal and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to seek ejectment of the defendants from the suit property as also claim damages for unauthorized use and occupation.

4. Since a decree on admission has been passed by the learned Single Judge qua the claim for ejectment in the suit, we need to note paragraph 3 of the plaint. It reads as under:-

“3. That the said Agreement of Lease was to commence w.e.f. 18.11.1999 and was to expire on 28.02.2011. The Defendants have paid the entire rent of the lease period of 11 years and 11 months amounting to Rs. 4,39,224/-. It may be noted that an amount of Rs. 3,73,340/- was paid after deducting the TDS of Rs. 65,884/- to the erstwhile owner at the time of executing leasedeed dated 21.11.1999. It is submitted that in terms of the said Agreement of Lease, initially the rent was fixed at Rs. 2,650/- per month. It was also agreed that the rent would be enhanced by 10% after every three years. Accordingly the rentals were enhanced in terms of the following schedule:    

The following calculation be also noted: