Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies only to cases where the plaintiff has been dispossessed by force or fraud or has voluntarily abandoned possession.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of I. As. Nos. 846, 847. 977 and 1022 of 1 973 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Original Suit No. 702 of 1967.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the reliefs claimed in the applications it will be necessary to refer in some detail to the facts leading to the filing of the suit. According to the averments made in the plaint, Haji Mohd. Yousuf, plaintiff No. 3 (since dead and now represented by his legal representatives) was the sole and absolute owner of the property described as Municipal No. XI/6147 (old) 4736/a-5 (new) and known as Kothi No. 23 situate at Ansari Road, Daryagani. Delhi. Bv a registered lease deed dated October 2, 1945. Haji Mohd. Yousuf leased out a portion (shown in red in the plan annexed to the lease deed) of the property in dispute to Radha Kishan Kapoor (father of defendants 1 and 2. grandfather of defendants Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 and father-in-law of defendant No. 5) at a rental of Rs. 600. 00 per month. He also permitted the tenant to use the portion shown in preen in the plan. The lease was for a period of one year with a condition that it could be extended bv another six months. As provided in the lease deed, the lease was extended for another period of six months. On the expiry of the extended period of the lease, the tenant continued in possession of the demised premises and paid rent to the landlord which was accepted by him. Radha Kishan Kapoor died on 29th October. 1955. and thereafter his sons, who were residing in the suit property with their father, continued to occupy the suit property as tenants. On 2nd February 1963. plaintiff No. 3 through his general attorney gifted the suit property to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the said gift was accepted by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff No. 3 gave notice to the Municipal Corporation of the gift made by him and on the basis of that notice the Municipal Corporation mutated the suit property in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the defendants for their eviction from the suit property on the grounds that they had failed to pay the arrears of rent within two months of the notice of demand served on them and that they were utilising the property for purposes other than the purpose for which the property was let out to them. The defendants in their reply to the eviction petition denied that they or their predecessor-in-interest Radha Kishan Kapoor was a tenant in the suit property and claimed to be the owner of the suit property by adverse possession.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs prayed that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property by virtue of the gift by plaintiff No. 3 and a decree for possession of the suit property be passed in their favour against the defendants and in the alternative prayed that in case it is found that plaintiffs 1 and 2 have not become the owner of the suit property under the gift made by plaintiff No. 3. a decree for possession of the suit property be Passed in favour of plaintiff No. 3.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. The defendants denied that Haji Mohd. Yousuf was the owner of the property. They also denied that they or their predecessor-in-interest Radha Kishan Kapoor was in possession of the property as a tenant or licencee under Haji Mohd. Yousuf. In the alternative the defendants pleaded that the lease was for 18 months and on the expiry of the lease there was no fresh tenancy and the possession of the defendants and their predecessor-in-interest was adverse to the owner and that had ripened into full ownership. The defendants denied that there was any valid gift by plaintiff No. 3 of the suit property in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The defendants further pleaded that plaintiff No. 3 had migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and he had become Pakistan National and as such he is not competent to sue for recovery of any property in this country. In addition to the