V.B.Gupta, J. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (Defendant in the trial court) against judgment dated 24th July, 2009 passed by Civil Judge, vide which suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short as „Act') for possession filed by respondent (Plaintiff in the trial court) was decreed.

2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent purchased property bearing no. 500, DDA Janta Flat, Ground Floor, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi from its owner Sh. Jagdish Chander Mehandiratta for sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- on 13th August, 1996. The possession of the said property was handed over to the respondent by its owner on receipt of the whole of the sale consideration. The said owner executed the possession letter showing the delivery of possession of the said property to the respondent and also executed other documents in favour of the respondent.

3. After purchase of the property, respondent has been letting out the same to different tenants and ultimately got the same vacated in December, 2000 and occupied it in January, 2001 and shifted his house-hold goods and started living in the said house.

4. Respondent also owns another house at 251, MIG, Suraj Apartments, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi and shifted to that house in order to get the suit property repaired. While respondent was living at house no. 251, MIG Suraj Apartments, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi, he came to know on 29th March, 2001 that petitioner has broken open the lock and trespassed into the property. Immediately, respondent lodged a report with the police.

5. It is further alleged that petitioner on the other hand, filed a false suit against him and his wife to the effect that she (petitioner) has purchased the said property from his wife for a sum of Rs.2,42,500/- and have paid a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- on 10th February, 2001 to his wife.

6. It is stated that his wife has got nothing do with the property in question and property is owned by him, which fact has been admitted by petitioner in the suit filed by her. All the house-hold goods of respondent are lying in the suit property. Thus, petitioner has illegally tresspassed in to the suit property unauthorisedly, without any legal right and as such respondent filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Act.

7. Petitioner in her written statement filed before the trial court has taken preliminary objections that suit of respondent is devoid of any cause of action and same is barred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as „Code'). Petitioner has already filed a suit for injunction against respondent and his wife, which is pending before the Civil Court.

8. On merits, it is stated that respondent misrepresented to the petitioner that alleged flat was of his wife-Smt. Raj Kumari and accepted part payment of Rs.1,27,500/- and handed over possession to her on 10th February, 2001. Balance payment of Rs.1,15,000/- was received by respondent on behalf of his wife, on 22nd March, 2001.

9. It is further alleged that respondent never resided in the Flat No. 500 and had been residing in Flat No. 226, MIG, Suraj Apartment, New Delhi, from where he got his ration card, which clearly shows his residence to be as above stated.

10. It is also alleged that respondent did not give receipt for the earnest money and started demanding Rs.60,000/- extra and threatened the petitioner of dispossession along with balance amount. Fearing dispossession, petitioner filed a suit for injunction which is pending for disposal.

11. It is further alleged that respondent also got signed from her on ten blank papers for giving the property documents, which was never done by the respondent.

12. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, trial court decreed the suit for possession in favour of the respondent.

13. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has purchased the flat in question from respondent's wife, for which pri