G.P. Mittal, J.

1. Appellant takes exception to the order dated 26th October, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit (OS) No. 2400/2008 whereby IA No. 9073/2010 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was allowed and suit for possession filed by the Respondent was decreed.

2. We have heard Shri G.L. Rawal senior counsel for the Appellant threadbare.

3. Before we go into merits of the Appeal, we may sum-up essential facts necessary for disposal of the Appeal.

4. The Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) is owner of Property No. S-323, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. He had let out the ground floor, first floor, garage with servant quarter and lawn attached to the said construction to the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as `Hill Elliott') through a registered Lease Deed dated 16.10.1982. The tenure of the lease was for a period of four years expiring on 12.10.1986. According to the Plaintiff no registered Lease Deed was executed thereafter and thus Hill Elliott became statutory tenant on month to month basis on paying agreed rent @ Rs. 7,000/- per month. The tenancy of Hill Elliott was terminated vide a notice dated 9.08.2008 w.e.f. 12.09.2008. The said notice was sent by registered post AD, speed post AD, courier service and UPC to the Defendant and the same was duly served upon Defendant by speed post AD as well as by registered post AD and by UPC. The notice is also deemed to have been served by courier as Hill Elliott had refused to accept the same as per the endorsement made on the undelivered envelop. According to the case of the Plaintiff, the AD cards for the notice sent by registered AD post and speed AD post at the address of the suit premises were not received back. The Plaintiff, therefore, wrote a letter dated 9.09.2008 followed by a letter dated 16.10.2008 to the Postal Authorities to give the service report about the notices. The Postal Authorities through its letter dated 09.10.2008 informed the Plaintiff that the notices sent through postal receipt No. 4527 and 4528 dated 09.08.2008 had been duly delivered to the addressee on 12.08.2008.

5. Apart from claiming a decree for possession, the Plaintiff also sought a relief of mesne profits which he assessed at Rs. 4,00,000/- per month w.e.f. the date the tenancy had come to an end i.e. 13.09.2008.

6. Hill Elliott contested the Suit by way of filing a written statement and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It took up the plea that Ashok Kumar Jhajharia had been inducted as a tenant w.e.f. 26.12.1989. It referred to the Suit filed by the Plaintiff before the Civil Court being No. 358/1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff's previous Suit) where he sought eviction of another person i.e. Ashok Kumar Jhajharia. Hill Elliott took the plea that the said Suit was withdrawn unconditionally without obtaining any leave and thus the instant Suit was not maintainable. It also disputed the service of the notice for termination of tenancy. Hill Elliott also made a mention of another Suit being No. 12/1993 instituted by Ashok Kumar Jhajharia, the erstwhile Director of Hill Elliott against the Plaintiff wherein Ashok Kumar Jhajharia had sought a decree of declaration that he was not a tenant in respect of suit premises and that a subsequent registered Lease Deed dated 26.12.1989 had never been acted upon between the Plaintiff and Ashok Kumar Jhajharia and that Hill Elliott continued to be the tenant as it had never surrendered the possession of the suit premises. It may be mentioned that in the Plaintiff's earlier suit Ashok Kumar Jhajharia had also been impleaded in addition to Hill Elliott and same plea had been taken by Ashok Kumar Jhajharia as Defendant No. 1 in the said Civil Suit that he had never been inducted as a tenant in the premises. It may be mentioned that the earlier Suit was filed way back in the year 1993 and the Plaintiff had woken up only in the year 2008 to admit the stand