Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. This judgment disposes of the first appeal filed by Fab India Overseas Private Limited and the cross-objections filed by Janak Mushran against the judgment and decree dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the single Judge in CS(OS) No. 246/2009 titled S.N. Sheopori and Janak Mushran v. Fab India Overseas Private Limited.

2. Before dwelling into the disputed questions, we deem it appropriate to state the undisputed facts and contentions raised. For the sake of convenience, S.N. Sheopori has been referred to as Sheopori, Janak Mushran as Mushran and Fab India Overseas Private Limited has been referred to as FIOP Limited.

3. Around 4th September, 1995 Sheopori and Mushran filed a suit against FIOP Limited seeking decree of possession of premises No. 14, N Block-Market, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 (property, for short); decree of recovery of Rs.40,000/- towards arrears of rent from 1st May, 1995 to 30th June, 1995 with pendante lite and future interest @ 18% per annum; decree of mesne profits and damages @ Rs.1 lac per month for the period 1st July, 1995 to 31st August, 1995 with pendant lite and future interest @ 18% per annum; future mesne profits till the delivery of vacant possession at least @ Rs.1 lac per month or at any higher rate as may be prevailing and interest @ 18%.

4. The two plaintiffs Sheopori and Mushran, as admitted by FIOP Limited, were joint owners of the property constructed on 197 square yards, comprising of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor, with covered area of approximately 4200 square feet.

5. FIOP Limited accepts that they were the tenant, under the co-owners Sheopori and Mushran. There was no written or registered lease and the tenancy was oral. The contentions regarding whether there was one single tenancy, as claimed by her (Mushran), or six separate and distinct tenancies, for the separate portions of the property, as claimed by FIOP Limited, is one of the disputes and will be examined subsequently. FIOP Limited contends that, in case, there were separate tenancies then the individual tenancies below Rs.3,500/-per month would be protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act for short) and, consequently, the suit for ejectment should have failed.

6. Sheopori and Mushran had served legal notice, dated 10th May, 1995, through their counsel and had terminated the tenancy of FIOP Limited, from the mid night of 30th June, 1995. The receipt of notice is not disputed and was replied to by FIOP Limited, vide letter dated 31st May, 1995, claiming that the tenancy was protected under the DRC Act.

7. Sheopori and Mushran claimed that, at the time of termination of tenancy, FIOP Limited was paying monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- on which Tax at Source (TDS for short) was deducted. The aforesaid factum is not disputed by FIOP Limited but, it is claimed, that the consolidated said rent represented the rent paid in respect of six different tenancies and not for one tenancy.

8. Sheopori, the original plaintiff, died on 6th January, 1999 and his share in the suit property devolved on his elder daughter Lakshmi Dar, who too expired on 4th September, 2002. Consequently, Lakshmi Dar’s two children Dhruv Dar and Preeti Atal were brought on record, in the civil suit.

9. Dhruv Dar and Preet Atal, by registered sale deed dated 21st October, 2005, sold their 50% share in the suit property to FIOP Limited.

10. Additional District Judge, before whom the suit was pending, by order dated 26th November, 2007 held that the suit for possession was not maintainable against the co-owner. By another order dated 29th April, 2008, issue No. 7 (whether the plaintiff, i.e., Mushran was entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property) was directed to be deleted and issue No. 3 was modified. The issues required to be decided were:

“1. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts that the tenancy was governed by DRC Act; if so, its effect? OPD

2. Whether the