1. Vide Ex.DW-1/1, on 13.12.1977, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC for short) allotted under a lease-hold tenure an industrial shed bearing No.22, Okhla Industrial Complex, Phase II, New Delhi to the respondent. On 27.8.1990, vide Ex.DW-1/2, respondent executed a license deed in favour of the appellant permitting the appellant to use the shed except the first floor thereof at a monthly license fee of Rs.19,000/- for a period of 3 years with effect from 1.9.1990.

2. A sum of Rs.1,14,000/- was paid as advance license fee to be recovered @ Rs.4,750/- per month i.e. in 24 months. Another sum of Rs.1,14,000/- was paid as interest free security deposit, to be refunded when the licensed premises was vacated.

3. Two months’ license fee thereafter was paid by the appellant who ceased to pay any further license fee because DSIDC issued an eviction order against the respondent on 20.11.1990, Ex.DW-1/5. It was alleged therein that the lease money payable by the respondent to DSIDC had not been paid and that the respondent was liable to be evicted.

4. The appellant faced a threat of eviction. It filed a writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No.3916/90. The order Ex.DW-1/5 was challenged in the writ petition. Vide order dated 10.12.1990, Ex.DW-1/6, while issuing show cause notice in the writ petition, operation of Ex.DW-1/5 was stayed.

5. Respondent challenged the eviction order, Ex.DW-1/5 by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 which was allowed vide order dated 15.5.1991, Ex.DW-1/17. The eviction order was set aside. Matter was remanded before the Estate Officer for fresh adjudication.

6. Vide Ex.PW-1/3, on 28.11.2000, respondent called upon the appellant to surrender possession of the entire shed alleging that the appellant had trespassed into the first floor thereof pertaining to which area no license was granted to the appellant. Stating that if appellant treated it to be a tenant, tenancy was determined after 15 days of receipt of the notice and that mesne profits would be payable for unauthorized occupation. Not receiving back the possession, respondent instituted a suit stating that as the licensor it was entitled to recover possession of the licensed area and as the owner of the remaining was entitled to receive possession thereof as possession of the appellant was unauthorized. It was stated that license fee for a period 3 years prior to the filing of the suit in sum of Rs.6,84,000/- was payable. Future mesne profits were claimed at Rs.1,50,000/- per month.

7. Appellant defended the suit by alleging misrepresentation of facts, being the non-disclosure of the eviction order passed against the respondent and the filing of WP(C) No.3916/1990 by the appellant. It was stated that vide Ex.DW-1/31 and Ex.DW-1/32, DSIDC had floated a scheme to regularize the allotment in favour of the sub allottees and that under the scheme, the appellant had deposited Rs.14,22,500/- with DSIDC and that vide order dated 3.9.1993, Ex.DW-1/41, the Division Bench before which W.P.(C) No.3916/90 was pending had permitted the appellant to deposit the amount with DSIDC. It was pleaded that aforenoted facts being not pleaded in the plaint, the suit merited a summary dismissal. It was pleaded that the respondent had lost title to the property and that the appellant was in occupation as an owner being directly recognized as the owner by DSIDC. It was alleged that the respondent had entered into the license agreement under a void title and hence could not rely upon the same. Bar of res judicata was predicated with reference to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.3916/90. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was pleaded that the respondent was not entitled to even maintain the suit by virtue of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

8. On the pleadings of the parties 13 issues were settled, being as under:-