PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Allowing IA No.19681/2014 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent suit filed by the respondent against the appellant for possession of property bearing Municipal No.C-2/9, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi has been decreed. It is apparent that the decree has been passed on an admission by the appellant found by the learned Single Judge.

2. Case pleaded by the respondent was that it was the perpetual lessee under a perpetual lease deed executed in its favour by the Delhi Development Authority of a plot of land bearing Municipal No.C-2/9, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi on which he had constructed a building which was given on lease to the appellant under a lease deed dated May 29, 2004 for residential use permitting residents of the directors of the appellant and other personnel of the sister companies. After a few months the appellant requested to use the premises for commercial purposes which request was accepted by the respondent subject to the condition that if any authority raised an issue concerning misuse of the leased premises, the appellant shall deal with the same. It was further pleaded that on the ground of misuse a resumption notice dated June 06, 2006 was received by the respondent which was challenged by the respondent by filing W.P.(C) No.10449/2006 in which an interim order was passed that subject to the premises being used only for residential purpose as stipulated in the perpetual lease deed executed by the Delhi Development Authority in favour of the respondent the notice dated June 06, 2006 shall be stayed. It was pleaded that the respondent informed the appellant of the condition upon which the Court had stayed the operation of the resumption notice dated June 06, 2006, but the misuse continued, thereby threatening the title of the respondent to the suit property. It was further pleaded that on November 06, 2006 the respondent received a notice from the Delhi Development Authority together with a demand for misuse charges. Alleging misuse to be continuing and the clouds casting a shadow on the title of the respondent looming large on account of the misuse it was alleged that the lease was determined by a notice dated September 30, 2006 and since possession was not handed over, cause of action accrued for possession to be recovered as also damages.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant it admitted having received possession of the suit property pursuant to the lease deed dated May 29, 2004. In paragraph 3 of the preliminary submissions it was pleaded as under:-

“3. The lease was initially for a period of 9 years commencing from 1st June, 2004 to 31st May, 2013 on a monthly rental of Rs.2,50,000/-per month. The lease could be extended for a further period of six years at the sole option of the lessee. The monthly rental is to be increased by 10% after every three (3) years. As per clause 9 of the said lease the lessee is entitled to use the demised premises for its associates and sister concerns even if there are in the future new associates or subsidiary or firm in which the directors of lessee are interested It is pertinent to mention herein that one letter was also signed and accepted by the lessor stating that the premises be used for commercial purposes subject to the lessee company take care of dealing with the concerned department.”

4. Defence taken was that the purpose of the lease was commercial and thus the appellant was entitled to use the property for a commercial purpose. It was pleaded that the previous tenant had used the premises for commercial purposes. It was further pleaded that the municipal authorities had taken a policy decision to permit commercial use of residential properties which were abutting on a road having width of 80 feet. It was pleaded that the suit property abutted a road having width of 80 feet.

5. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were settled on November 17, 2