Hima Kohli, J.:--

I.A. 12447/2008 (by the plaintiffs u/O XII R 6 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC praying inter alia for passing a decree of possession in respect of the suit premises in its favour, based on the admissions made by the defendants.

2. A brief glance at the factual matrix of the case is considered necessary. The plaintiff/Trust has filed the suit for a decree of possession against Smt. Sughra Begum, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in respect of a shop on the ground floor of the Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Trust Hospital, being run by it at Rajpur Road, Delhi, for recovery of a sum of Rs.36 lacs towards the arrears of rent/donation/contribution, and for pendente lite and future damages towards the use and occupation of the said shop alongwith interest etc.

3. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/Trust had let out the subject shop to Mrs. Sughra Begum (since deceased) for the purpose of supplying drugs, etc., in bulk/retail to the Hospital. An agreement was executed between the parties on 29.03.1975, whereunder the deceased defendant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 350/- to the plaintiffs in advance in the first week of every month. This was followed by several other agreements executed between the parties from time to time, the last one having been executed on 28.03.1995, whereunder the tenure of the agreement was to commence on 01.06.1993 and end on 31.05.1996.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff/Trust that in the year 2000, the defendant had filed a suit against the Trust for recovery of money towards the medicines sold by her, registered as Suit No. 1435/2000. In paras 2 to 5 of the plaint, the defendant had admitted to the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the Trust and she had also admitted to paying a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the Trust as rent of the subject shop. A similar admission was made by her in the affidavit by way of evidence filed in the captioned suit. It is the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that on a collective reading of the admissions made by the defendant in the captioned suit, it clearly emerges that she is a tenant under the plaintiff/Trust in respect of the subject shop on a month to month basis and the monthly consideration of Rs. 9,000/- was being paid by her for the said premises.

5. To fortify his argument that plaintiff/Trust is entitled to a decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admissions made by the deceased defendant, learned counsel had also relied on three sets of orders passed in another litigation between the parties, starting from the order dated 21.04.2008 passed by the Additional Rent Controller on an application filed by the deceased defendant (Petitioner therein) under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for seeking restoration of electricity supply to the subject shop, followed by the order dated 02.02.2009 passed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal and culminating in the order dated 21.05.2010, passed by the High Court in CM(M) No. 387/2009, a petition filed by the defendant challenging the dismissal order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

6. A reference was also made by learned counsel for the plaintiff/Trust to the admissions made by the defendant in the legal notice dated 02.12.1998, served by her on the Trust wherein she had admitted to being a tenant under it and to the fact that monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/- is payable by her in respect of the subject shop. Lastly, he had relied on the legal notice dated 21.12.2006, issued by the plaintiff/Trust under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, to state that it was duly served on the defendant through registered AD/UPC/courier, whereunder, her tenancy was terminated and she was called upon to hand over the vacant physical possession of the subject shop. To substantiate his submission that the tenancy of the defendant had been validly