INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 17.8.2010 whereby the suit for possession, permanent injunction and damages filed by the plaintiff Nirmal Kumar qua the suit property bearing No.1715, Pilli Kothi, Nahar Sada Khan, S.P.Mukherjee Marge, Delhi had been dismissed.

2. The contention of the is plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property and the defendant Sunil Kumar Jain is a trespasser. Admittedly, father of Sunil Kuma Jain, Inder Kumar was his tenant but after his death on 19.2.2005 and thereafter the death of his wife Memo Devi on 9.3.2008, the defendant had become a mere trespasser and was liable to be evicted.

3. The defence of the defendant was that he was a tenant n his legal right and he had inherited the tenancy from his father; he could not be evicted by way of the present suit. Bar of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as „the DRCA?) was in operation as the suit property was admittedly rented out for less than `3500/- per month.

4. The trial judge had framed seven issued. Issue no.3 was the contentious issue; it reads a