RADHAKRISHAN TEMPLE TRUST Vs. HINDCO ROTATRON PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C.(I.A.No.l927/97) filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Facts relevant and requisite for the purpose of deciding the present application lie in a narrow compass. Plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises and for recovery of Rs.1,92,000.00 as mesne profits. According to the case set up by the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 took the suit premises on rent for a Fixed period of 3 years with a covenant of two renewals of 3 years each, with effect from 22.1.1985 vide registered lease deed dated 22.1.1985. Thereafter, the defendant No.l inducted the defendant No.2 in the suit premises as a sub tenant for a fixed period of 5 years. This contract of sub-tenancy expired on 3.11.1995 by efflux of time. The contract of tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant No.l also expired on 21.1.1994 by efflux of time. By the letter dated 7.3.1994 the plaintiff asked the defendant No.l to vacate the suit premises as the contract of tenancy came to an end under the indenture of lease dated 22.1.1985 but the defendants did not vacate the suit premises.

(3.) After service of summons, the defendant No.l filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code . (IA No-6311/96) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is this application (IA.No-6311/96), which gave rise to the present application under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C.