MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, mesne profits and damages.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing plot No. 10, Block-172, Jor Bagh Market, New Delhi-110003 (hereinafter referred to as the "said property"). It is submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the said property from its erstwhile owner, Smt. Neeta Mehra vide registered documents of title executed by her and got registered on 14th August, 2006.

2.1. The defendant No. 1 had entered into an unregistered Agreement of Lease dated 21st November, 1999 with the erstwhile owner, Smt. Neeta Mehra with respect to 45% of the area of the said property, which was falling on the Eastern part of the ground floor, comprising of Eastern Shop, an office block, a mezzanine over the office block, a toilet, courtyard at the back and concerned verandah with a display window (hereinafter referred to as the' 'demised premises'). The possession of the first floor of the said property is with the plaintiff and the entrance to the first floor as well as to the mezzanine floor of the said property is from the back portion of the said property.

2.2. The said Agreement of Lease was to commence w.e.f. 18th November, 1999 and was to expire on 28th February, 2011. The defendants have paid the entire rent of the lease period. As mentioned earlier, the said Agreement of Lease dated 21st November, 1999 was an unregistered document and therefore, as per settled law the tenancy of the defendants in respect of the demised premises was on a month-to-month basis. After 17th November, 2008, the demised premises stood governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and in terms of Section 106 of the Act the tenancy of the defendants is determinable by giving 15 days notice.

2.3. It is submitted that when the plaintiff took possession of the said property after purchasing the same from its erstwhile owner, it transpired that the defendants are in an unauthorized occupation of the Western portion on the ground floor of the said property as well which was never let out to the defendants. As the plaintiff was no longer interested in retaining the defendants as a tenant in respect of the demised premises and was also desirous of getting the possession of the western portion, therefore, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendants by giving notice dated 3rd May, 2010 under Section 106 of the Act. It was informed in the aforesaid notice that the tenancy of the defendants would stand terminated with effect from the midnight of 17th/18th June, 2010. It was made clear that the occupation and possession of the defendants of the demised premises after 18th June, 2010 would be illegal, unauthorized, unlawful and the status of the defendants would be that of a trespasser. The plaintiff by way of the above stated legal notice dated 3rd May, 2010 also informed the defendants that they were never the tenant with respect to the Western Portion. However, without prejudice, it was stated that if at any point of time the defendants are to claim any tenancy right in respect of the Western portion, then any such tenancy shall also stand terminated by virtue of the legal notice dated 3rd May, 2010. The defendants were accordingly called upon to give peaceful vacant possession of the Western portion as well on 18th June, 2010.

2.4. It was also brought to the notice of the defendants vide aforesaid notice dated 3rd May, 2010 that during the course of occupation by the defendants, the defendants have carried out unauthorized structures in the back courtyard on the ground floor of the said property. The defendants were called upon to demolish the unauthorized structures immediately and restore the said property in its original condition. It was stated in the notice that if the defendants failed to comply with the terms of the notice then the plaintiff will claim dam