P.C. :

1. The preliminary issue of inherent jurisdiction of the Court is raised. The issue has been framed thus:

Whether the present suit is maintainable in this Court as it is between landlord and tenant / trespasser.

2. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court is, therefore, to be determined. Plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 have led oral as well as documentary evidence.

3. The issue of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court has to be decided upon the averments in the plaint. The oral evidence, if any, would, therefore, only be required to be explanatory. It would be led to explain the averments made by the plaintiff or to confront the plaintiff with those averments for explaining the true nature of the averments in the plaint.

4. The initial suit was filed by two flat purchasers against the owner of the plot of land, the developer of the suit property and another person who is stated to be the trespasser and who claims to be a tenant. Upon the registration of the society it was added as plaintiff No.3. Thereafter the suit is stated to have been settled between the flat purchasers and the society on the one hand and the owner of the property and the developer on the other.