REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th October, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant had filed a suit for possession, recovery of damages and permanent injunction against the respondents 1 to 4 stating therein that the President of India through the Additional Secretary (Lease Administration Branch), Delhi Development Authority, had executed a perpetual lease deed dated 08.03.1973 in favour of the appellant in respect of an industrial plot bearing No.115 situated at Block “B”, G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi, which lease deed was registered with the Sub-Registrar and as such the appellant was the sole owner of the aforesaid plot of land. It was further stated that the appellant raised construction on the said plot of land for industrial purposes as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid perpetual lease deed. The respondent No.1, who was married to the son of the appellant Sardar Gurpal Singh on 23.02.1993, deserted the said son of the appellant and went to reside at Ludhiana along with her daughter Sania and the respondents No. 2 to 4, being her mother, sister and brother, and thereafter started working as a Nurse in PGI Hospital, Chandigarh, where she is residing till date. During this period, the appellant had gone for treatment to the United States of America, leaving behind his brother, his wife and his mother in the suit property. In the second week of July, 2000, that is, on 12.07.2000, the respondent No.1 allegedly committed criminal trespass in respect of the two rooms situated on the first floor of the property and theft of the goods of Sardar Baljeet Singh (son of the appellant) lying therein apart from manhandling the inhabitants of the house, resulting in Shri Prahlad Singh, the brother of the appellant, lodging a report with the Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, New Delhi on07.07.2000 against the respondent No.1, her brother and father. Soon thereafter, on 11.07.2000, the respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the appellant, Shri Gurpal Singh (husband of the respondent No.1), Shri Baljeet Singh (son of the appellant) and one Shri Maakhan Singh. The said civil suit was withdrawn on 22.08.2000 on account of technical flaws with liberty to file a fresh one. When the appellant came to India on 14.08.2000, he after taking stock of the situation, lodged a report with the Commissioner of Police on 18.08.2000 as well as on 26.08.2000, but to no avail. Resultantly, the appellant served a legal notice upon the respondent No.1 by registered A/D post, but in spite of the said notice, the respondent No.1 instead of vacating the two rooms on the first floor of the property, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and others including her husband Sardar Gurpal Singh. The appellant left with no other alternative, filed the instant suit for possession, recovery of damages and permanent injunction against the respondents.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing the written statements stating therein that the dowry furniture of the respondent No.1 was lying in the aforesaid two rooms since February, 1994, and the luggage and other goods of Shri Baljeet Singh were lying on the second floor of the premises, where other family members of the appellant were residing. It was further stated that the respondent No.1 had full legal right to her in-laws property. It was denied that Sardar Gurpal Singh had obtained the divorce from

the respondent No.1 on the ground of cruelty. Significantly, however, the respondent No.1 nowhere denied the fact that on 12.07.2000 she had broken open the locks of two rooms on the first floor of the property, which were, in fact, in the possession of the appellant.

4. The appellant filed replication to the afores