Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By this order, I shall dispose of the two applications filed by the plaintiff, bearing I.A. No. 6403/2011 (under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC) and I.A. No. 16440/2011 (under Order XVA read with Section 151 CPC).

2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession in respect of the premises bearing No. 119-C, Lane No. 3, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110068, recovery of arrears of rent and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, disposing, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.

3. It is stated by the plaintiff that in the month of February 2009, the plaintiff had let out the suit property to the defendant for residential purposes for eleven months with effect from 07.02.2009 for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,75,000/- . The defendant deposited a security of Rs. 3,50,000/- and paid the rent for the month of February and March and requested the plaintiff to adjust the security deposit of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards the rent for the month of April and May. Thereafter, he issued two cheques towards the rent for the month of June and July, but both these cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the defendant not only promised to pay the monthly rent but also offered to vacate the suit property. But the defendant has consistently failed to honour his promises and undertakings. A sum of Rs. 12,25,000/- is due from the defendant as rent for the period from June 2009 to December 2009 as mentioned in the application which was filed along with plaint.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to passing of the present order, the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking directions for the defendant to pay the admitted amount of arrears of rent of Rs. 12,25,000/- to the plaintiff for the period, from June, 2009 to December, 2009, was disposed of with the following directions:

"(a)

The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff the admitted arrears of rent of Rs. 12,25,000/- for the period from June, 2009 to December, 2009 within the period of four weeks from today.

(b)

He shall also pay the rent for the subsequent period to the plaintiff within twelve weeks from the date of passing the order.

(c)

He is also directed to continue to pay the admitted rent to the plaintiff for every month till the time he is occupying the premises in question."

5. It appears from the record that the defendant thereafter filed an appeal against the said order, bearing FAO(OS) No. 441/2011 before the Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench with cost of Rs. 50,000/- on 13.09.2011. The operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench, which is necessary to decided the present applications, reads as under:-

"The stand of the appellant before the court when he filed the suit for injunction is that he is the tenant. The respondent in the plaint filed before us, has also taken a stand that the appellant is the tenant. Learned senior counsel for the appellant seeks to derive strength from the written statement filed by the respondent in the proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge. We find no substance in the same. If the written statement is read as a whole it is quite obvious that it is the say of the respondent that the premises in issue were rented out to the appellant. This is stated so in paragraph (A) of the preliminary objection. In the parawise reply on merits to the plaint, it has been stated as under:

"The averment that the suit premises was let out to the company of the plaintiff vide any valid lease agreement is incorrect and is vehemently denied."

...

We fail to read the aforesaid sentence as a denial of lease arrangement but what is denied is that the lease was with the company. In fact the respondent goes on to state in the subsequent parag