Upon the expiration of a lease, if not renewed, the tenancy reverts to a month-to-month basis, which can be terminated with proper notice.

1. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment seeking recovery of possession from the defendants in respect of premises comprising of approximately 7063 sq.ft., with covered area of 5392 sq.ft. and an open area of 1671 sq.ft. (stated to be subsequently covered by defendant No. 1) on the first floor of premises bearing No.G - 72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).

2. The plaintiffs are the owners and landlords of the suit property and in terms of a lease deed dated 18-9-1986 duly registered on 20-9-1986, let out the same to defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 189.50. It is stated that on the expiry of the lease deed the tenancy of defendant No. 1 became monthly commencing from the first date of each month and ending with the last date of the same month. Defendant No. 1 is alleged to have sub-let, assigned or parted with possession of an area of 1280 sq.ft. to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (defendant No. 2) without obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs in writing and has also sub-let, assigned and parted with the possession of the entire remaining area to defendants 3 to 5 similarly without the prior consent of the plaintiffs. Defendants 3 to 5 have also been alleged to have further sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2 and now the whole of the premises are stated to be in possession of defendant No. 2. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have come to know that the monthly rental for the same being paid by defendant No. 2 is Rs. 2,09,330.00 and thus, even though the initial letting to defendant No. 1 was for Rs. 189.50 per month, the tenancy is now not protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) and the defendants are liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the TP Act).

3. The plaintiffs did not want to continue the tenancy of defendant No. 1 and vide notice dated 9-4-1995 under S.106 of the TP Act, duly served on defendant No. 1 on 17-4-1995, terminated the said tenancy and called upon defendant No. 1 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property by the end of 31-5-1995.

4. The plaint also states that the plaintiffs had filed an eviction petition under S.14 (1)(b) of the Rent Act on the ground of sub-letting of the said premises by defendant No. 1 to defendants 2 to 5 but in terms of the order dated 4-10-1995 of Dr. R. K. Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, the said petition was rejected under O.7 R.11 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the premises was taken away from the ambit of jurisdiction of the Rent Act. The plaintiffs have reserved the right to claim damages and at this stage have filed the suit only for eviction.

5. The defendants have contested the suit and as per defendant No. 2 a plea is sought to be raised about the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court in view of the protection under the Rent Act on the basis that the relationship of landlord and tenant is between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. On the merits, reliance is placed on the terms of the perpetual lease dated 20-3-1937 read with Clause 4 of the lease deed dated 18-9-1986 to the effect that if the provisions of the Rent Act are amended and any rights are acquired by the landlord, the same shall not be enforced to vacate the tenant except on the ground of breach of the terms of the perpetual lease deed dated 20-3-1937. It is stated that as per Clause 1 (g), the tenan