Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit, inter alia, praying for a decree of possession of ground floor of A-27, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi with mesne profit with effect from 1st January, 2012 till the actual physical possession of the premises is delivered along with the costs.

2. By way of present application the plaintiffs pray for passing of a preliminary decree of possession of the demised premises consisting of one dining room, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, a kitchen, a servant quarter and front lawn from the defendants on the basis of admissions made by the defendants under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the defendants in the written statement have admitted that the premises was given on rent, the suit for recovery of possession is not protected under the provisions of Rent Control Act and the landlord tenant relationship having been severed by notice served by the plaintiffs under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short the T.P. Act), the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment and decree for possession. The pleas of the defendant even if accepted do not affect the entitlement of the plaintiffs for possession of the premises as held in M/s. Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary 2012 (9) SCALE 105. Reliance is also placed on Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Virendra Prakash & Anr. 2012 V AD (DELHI) 373 to contend that existence of relationship of landlord tenant, factum of premises not having protection of Delhi Rent Control Act and the factum that tenancy was terminated by service of legal notice not being disputed in the written statement, the decree is required to be passed in favour of the landlord. Even de-hors the issue of termination of tenancy, if the period of lease expires, the tenant is liable to vacate the premises. Reference is made to Ashwani Bhatia (Sh.) v. Sh. Suresh Rastogi & Anr. 2012 IV AD (DELHI) 315.

4. Learned counsel for the defendants on the other hand contends that the defendants have taken three preliminary objections in the written statement and in view thereof it cannot be said that there is an admission and plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment on admission. It is specifically objected in the written statement that a defective notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was served, the defendant has spent money on renovation and by oral agreement the parties agreed to a lease for 10 years. Once the defendant disputes the facts, the same cannot be treated as admissions and the suit is required to be tried. Hence the application by the plaintiffs are liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on K. Seetharam v. B.U. Papamma and Anr. (2001) 4 SCC 322 and Beryl Murzello & Ors. v. Ramchandra Bhairo Mane & Ors. 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 393 (Bombay)(DB) to contend that there should be a clear admission and if the facts are disputed then the suit is liable to be tried.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the plaintiffs inducted the defendant No. 1 as a tenant in the suit premises vide registered lease deed dated 6th February, 2000 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of two years which expired on 31st January, 2002. After the expiry of the period of lease, the defendants continued to occupy the demised premises with mutual understanding on the same terms and conditions as provided in the registered lease deed except increasing the rent. No fresh lease deed was executed and registered after the expiry of initial period of lease provided in the lease dated 6th February, 2000. The rent was increased by mutual consent from Rs. 40,000/- over a period of time to Rs. 1,35,000/- which was the last paid rent exclusive of water, electricity and other charges. The defendants are not entitled to seek protection under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As the plaintiffs were not interested in keeping the defendants as tenants, the tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 14th