RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The defendant has applied for dismissal of the suit as barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This court also on 6th November, 2008, on a preliminary hearing on various pending applications finding that the plaintiff’s case is that the property, subject matter of the suit was let out to one school of which one Mr. Pires was the proprietor and the defendant is now in possession of the property and further finding that it is the admitted position that the tenancy of the school was protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, called upon the counsels to first address on the maintainability of the suit. The senior counsels have been heard and the counsels have also filed detailed synopsis of submissions with plethora of judgments.

2. The plaintiff instituted this suit against two defendants, for the relief of possession of property No. R-96, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and for recovery of arrears of and future mesne profits with interest etc. It is inter-alia the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the said property was let out by predecessors in title of the plaintiff to “Mr. Pires’s Private School” through its proprietors Mr. Pires at a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- w.e.f. 1st October, 1971 for three years; on expiry of three years the lease was extended and a deed dated 27th September, 1974 was extended. That the extended term of the lease also expired in 1977; that on the failure of Mr. Pires to vacate the premises, a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of Rent Act was filed in 1978; that Mr. Pires died on 19th November, 1980 leaving a son and a daughter; the predecessors in title of the plaintiff also died in 1982 and the property was inherited by his heirs who were substituted in the proceedings aforesaid under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Rent Act; that the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Rent Act was dismissed on 8th December, 1985 finding the premises to have been let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes; that the revision petition preferred to this court against the said order was dismissed in default and at the time of institution of the suit the application for restoration of the same was pending; that the heirs of the predecessors in title of the plaintiff also filed a petition for eviction on the ground of sub letting [Section 14 (1) (b)] as well as another petition under Section 14 D of the Rent Act; in the meantime “Pires” abandoned the premises – it was after 1984; that none of the Pires had been heard of for the last many years; that the defendant No.2 was an employee of Pires’s Private School who later on self styled herself as Principal and the defendant No.1 was her husband and Legal Advisor of Mr. Pires; that the defendants found it convenient to unauthorizedly entered the house; during the lifetime of Mr. Pires the defendant No.2 had access to the property as an employee and upon abandonment of the property by the Pires, the defendants entered into possession of the property unathorizedly; that the defendant No.2 had been alleging herself to be a partner of Pires’s Private School and therefore a tenant in the premises; in view of the said plea of the defendant No.2 the predecessors in title of the plaintiff had impleaded the defendant No.2 as a respondent to the petition for eviction under the Rent Act filed with respect to the premises though without admitting her as a tenant; that on 19th February, 1992 the plaintiff acquired title to the said property and upon the refusal of the defendants to vacate the property, instituted the suit for possession.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was inter-alia pleaded that the defendant No.1 had nothing to do with the property and had been wrongly impleaded; that the defendant No.2 had become the owner of the property by adverse possession in October, 1989, her adverse possession having started w.e.f. October, 1977; with respect to the petition for eviction on the g