J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2012 passed by the Fist Appellate Court, namely, the learned ADJ, Central-17, Delhi in RCA No.17/2011 preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs. The Fist Appellate Court dismissed the said first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Civil Judge, Central-5, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.472/2010. The Trial Court had similarly dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages.

2. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that they had initially let out the suit property bearing no.1337, Ground Floor, Sector-D, Pocket-1, DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the respondent/defendant on 18.06.1988 on an initial rent of Rs.2,500/- excluding water, electricity and other charges. The said lease was for a period of three years w.e.f. 19.06.1988. Consequently, the said initial lease expired on 19.06.1991. The plaintiff claimed that the same had been extended by the parties upto 30.06.1992 on 21.03.1991. The plaintiff claimed that on that occasion, the rent was enhanced by 10% to Rs.2750/- p.m.

3. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 08.07.1994 to increase the rent by resort to section 6A, read with section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). In this notice, the plaintiff claimed that the rent had been increased from Rs.2,500/- by 10%, w.e.f 19.06.1991. The plaintiff sought a further increase of 10% w.e.f. 19.06.1994 thereby increasing the rent to Rs.3025/- p.m.

4. The plaintiff claimed that he issued a second notice claiming further increase of rent by 10% on the pre existing rent, on 01.11.1997, thereby increasing the rent to Rs.3,328/-. Another notice of increase of rent was issued on 19.06.2000, thereby increasing the rent by another 10% on the pre existing rent of Rs.3361/- p.m. The plaintiff claimed that since the rent had gone beyond Rs.3500/-, the monthly tenancy of the defendant was terminated vide notice dated 25.10.2001. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not respond to either of the aforesaid three notices. However, the defendant sent a communication dated 10.02.1993, as per which he agreed to increase the rent w.e.f. February 1993 by 10% to Rs.2750/- over the pre existing rent of Rs.2500/- p.m. Thereafter, the present suit was filed on 13.01.2005, inter alia, claiming possession/ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits.

5. The defendant upon service of summons filed the written statement. The defendant denied any increase of rent w.e.f. 19.06.1991 as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the rent had been increased by him to Rs.2,750/- p.m. with effect from 01.02.1992. The defendant claimed that the suit was barred under section 50 of the DRC Act as the rent was below Rs.3500/- p.m.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues – one of the issues being whether the suit is barred under section 50 of the DRC Act. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff exhibited the aforesaid three notices dated 08.07.1994, 01.11.1997 and 19.06.2000 as Ex. PW-1/6, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/11 respectively. The plaintiff also produced the defendants letter dated 10.02.1993, as aforesaid, seeking to enhance the rent from Rs.2750/- w.e.f. 01.02.1993. The same, however, does not appear to have been given an exhibit mark. On the said aspect, the plaintiffs witnesses not cross examined. Thus, this communication of the defendant can be read in evidence. The trial court returned the finding that the plaintiff had not been able to establish the 10% increase of rent w.e.f. 19.06.1991. Consequently, the trial court held that each of the notices issued by the plaintiff dated 08.07.1994, 01.11.1997 and 19.06.2000 (Ex. PW-1/6, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/11 respectively) were premature, as 10% increase had not become due when the said notices were issued,