S. Ravindra Bhat, J.- The applicant first defendant moves this Court, for rejection of the suit, on the ground that it is barred in law, citing Order 21 Rules 58 and 101 of the CPC.

2. The plaintiff claims to be owner of property ("suit property") being 190 square yards, part of Khasra No. 436/297, Batla House, Okhla, Jamia Nagar, which is shown in red in the site plan filed with the suit. The plaintiff claims that the third defendant was his predecessor in interest, with whom he (the plaintiff) entered into a transaction to purchase (the suit property), on 25.9.2003 and 26.9.2003, when a General Power of Attorney and a Will were executed and Rs. 3,00,000/ - were paid as consideration. It is stated that an agreement (to sell) was also entered, and that further, the predecessor in interest, third defendant put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The suit alleges that the suit property was an open piece of land, and formed part of a larger plot of 800 square yards. It is alleged that when this was the factual situation, the first defendant, claiming to be the landlord in respect of the said property, including the suit property, with the aid of the Court bailiff, dispossessed the plaintiff from the said suit property, on 30.8.2005. The suit contends that the plaintiff was at that time, unaware of the full facts, but after causing inspection of the official file (of the Court whose decree was sought to be executed) discovered that the first defendant had falsely represented himself to be owner of the suit property, and also alleged - falsely that the second defendant was his tenant.

3. The plaintiff elaborates, in the suit, that the first two defendants appear to have colluded in securing the decree of the Court and dispossessing him from the premises, as was allegedly apparent from the circumstance that the suit was instituted in 2004 (E-19/2004); the second defendant was proceeded ex parte on 15.9.2004, and the eviction decree issued on 12.10.2004. In these circumstances, the plaintiff claims declarations that he is the true and lawful owner of the suit property, and that the decree of the Rent Controller in E-19 /2004 is void and not binding, and for the consequential relief of a decree for possession, against the defendant Nos. 1&2; in the alternative, a decree for Rs. 31akh is claimed against the third defendant, in the event of the said defendant's title being proved to be defective.

4. The defendant resists the suit, on merits, in the written statement, and in the application for rejection of the plaint, contends that the plaintiff has preferred objections before the Rent Controller, which were rejected on 21.11.2007. It is submitted that the power of the Rent Controller is identical to that of the Civil Court, by virtue of Section 42 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 read with Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959. In the circumstances, the plaintiff having availed of the remedy - which included the right to seek adjudication of the title and true ownership of the property, the present suit, for declaration is not maintainable. Section 42 of the DRC Act and Rule 23 of the DRC Rules are extracted below:

"Section 42. Controller to exercise powers of Civil Court for execution of other orders-Save as otherwise provided in Section 41, an order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under this Act shall be executable by the Controller as a decree of a Civil Court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a Civil Court."

"Rule 23. Code of Civil Procedure to be generally followed-In deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act and these rules the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

5. It is urged, in addition, that the question of right, title and interest to the property having been put in issue by way of objections under Se