S.N. Dhingra, J. - (1.) THIS application has been made by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree of possession of suit property on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in the pleadings and through documents.
(2.) THE brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this application are that the plaintiff had leased out premises No. P -15, Connaught Place, New Delhi to the defendant vide a registered lease deed dated 10th December, 2004. As per the lease deed, the lease of premises in favour of the defendant started on 1st October, 2003 for a period of 5 years and lease expired on 30th September, 2008. The rent of the premises is undoubtedly above Rs. 3500/ - per month therefore, the tenancy was not covered under Delhi Rent Control Act. As per terms of lease, the lease could be further renewed after expiry of initial period of 5 years with mutual consent in writing. The relevant paragraph which provides for renewal of the lease reads as under: 4. That the Lease will be initially for a period of five years from 1st October, 2003 to 30th September, 2008 and the Lessee shall request in writing for further extension if so desired. The Lease period shall be further extended on terms and conditions with mutual consent between Lessor and the Lessee. It has been mutually agreed that there shall be no further extension of the Lease, if no request in writing is received three months prior to the expiry of the lease period, the Lease shall stand expired and terminated on 30th September, 2008. The plaintiff submitted that no extension of lease could be mutually agreed upon between the parties. Thus, the lease expired by efflux of time on 30th September, 2008. The premises was not vacated after expiry of lease. The defendants had also not approached the plaintiff in terms of above clause for extension of lease at least 3 months before the expiry of lease period. However, in order to circumvent this clause the defendant handed over to the plaintiff a letter on 11th August, 2008 bearing date of 1st July, 2008 expressing its wish to extend the lease period. The plaintiff immediately, i.e., on 18th August, 2008 replied the letter stating that it has been back -dated and the request for further extension was not acceded to. However, the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession The plaintiff thereafter, as a matter of abundant caution, served a notice dated 18.10.2008 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to hand over the possession. The defendant continued to keep the possession. The rent cheques sent by the defendant for the months of October and November were not presented by the plaintiff to avoid any controversy and plaintiff after filing of the suit would be presenting the cheques, without prejudice to his rights.
(3.) IN the WS, the execution of lease, the period of lease etc. are not denied. However, the defendant has taken the stand that letter dated 1st July, 2008 to the plaintiff seeking extension of lease was posted to the plaintiff on 1st July, 2008 itself and was personally handed over to the plaintiff on 1st July, 2008. The representative of defendant -company, Mr. S.V. Ganapathy was in regular touch with the plaintiff for execution of fresh lease deed. The plaintiff had assured execution of fresh lease deed for a further period of 5 years on enhancement of rent by 30%. It was agreed that until the fresh lease deed was executed in writing, the rent be paid by defendant on old rate and the arrears of rent on increased rate would be payable after signing of fresh lease deed. However, the plaintiff did not come forward for signing fresh lease deed.;