The protection under Section 53-A of T.P. Act was not applicable as the lease deed was unregistered and the terms of the lease were not extended. The suit was not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as the cause of action for ejectment arose after the filing of the previous suit for recovery of rent. The acceptance of rent after the termination of tenancy did not amount to a waiver of the notice of termination.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh, has been dismissed.

2. Respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment of defendants from the demised premises i.e. S.C.O No. 18-19, Sector-34, City Sub-centre, Chandigarh comprised of basement portion, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor, which was let out to them by the plaintiffs vide lease deed dated 20.09.1996 and also for the recovery of Rs. 13,02,090/- as arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.11.2000 to 31.03.2001 at the rate of Rs. 2,60,418/- per month along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 40,000/- and for future damages w.e.f. 01.04.2001 onwards at the rate of Rs.2,60,418/- along with interest at the aforesaid rate.

3. Plaintiffs are the owners/landlord of the demised premises. The same was let out by them to the appellants-defendants vide lease deed dated 20.09.1996. According to terms and conditions, the tenancy was the monthly tenancy starting from 1st of each month and expiring at the end of the month according to the British Calender. The water and electricity charges were to be borne by the appellants-defendants besides the rent. The rent of the demised premises was settled as below as per clause 3 of the lease deed:-

i.	1.08.1996 to 31.07.1997	Rs. 1,95,000/-
ii	1.08.1997 to 31.07.1998	Rs. 2,09,000/-
iii	1.08.1998 to 31.07.1999	Rs.2,25,347/-
iv	1.08.1999 to 31.07.2000	Rs.2,42,249/-
v	1.08.2000 to 31.07.2001	Rs.2,60,418/-

That as the premises in question was newly constructed and period of 5 years has not yet expired, so the building was exempted from the operation of provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ' Rent Act') 2. In part performance of the lease deed dated 20.09.1996, defendants started paying the rent to the plaintiffs-respondents including the increase of the rent. The clause of the lease deed regarding increase of the rent was duly acted upon by the defendants. The rent of the demised premises w.e.f. 01.08.1999 was Rs. 2,42,249/-. The same was being paid by the defendants after deducting the Tax Deduct at Source (for short TDS). That w.e.f. 01.08.2000 the appellants were tenants in the demised premises on payment of the rent at the rate of Rs. 2,60,418/- per month. Plaintiffs had already instituted the suit for recovery of the arrears of rent due against the appellants up to 30.10.2000 which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh.

4. Condition No. 13 (III) 1 of the lease deed read as under:-

“In the event the lessee fails to pay the rent as required under this Deed or makes a breach of any of the terms and conditions or covenants hereby agreed, the lessors shall have the right to terminate this Deed and take over possession of the said premises.”

That the appellants committed the breach of aforesaid condition, so the tenancy of the appellants were terminated vide notice dated 17.11.2000, which was dispatched to the defendants on 30.12.2000 through registered A.D as well as U.P.C. In spite of the service of notice and termination of tenancy, the appellants have not delivered the vacant possession of the demised premises. Hence the suit.

5. Appellants-defendants contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that initially the terms and conditions were reduced into writing vide alleged lease deed dated 20.09.1996. But, the terms and conditions incorporated therein were never acted upon by the parties. Defendants were never inducted as tenants under the plaintiffs in the demised premises on the terms and conditions mentioned in