Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 15th May, 2013 of the Court of Addl. District Judge-02 (South) in CS No.12/2010 (Unique Case ID No.02406C0365612010)) of ejectment of the appellant from property No.D-129, Saket, New Delhi and for recovery of mesne profits of Rs.3,96,000/-.

2. The appeal came up before this Court first on 26th August, 2013 when the counsel for the appellant being unable to answer the queries raised by this Court had sought adjournment. While so adjourning the appeal, the Trial Court record was also requisitioned and has been received.

3. The counsel for the appellant has been heard.

4. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:

(i) that it was the then owner/landlord of property No.D-129, Saket, New Delhi, having acquired the same from Sh. A.K. Rangaswami vide Sale Deed dated 29.12.2009;

(ii) that the said Sh. A.K. Rangaswami had leased out the said property to the appellant/defendant at a rent of Rs.30,000/-per month vide lease deed dated 27.11.2007 for a period of eleven months commencing from 10.12.2007 and ending on 09.11.2008; on the request of the appellant/defendant a fresh lease dated 10.11.2008 for a period of eleven months commencing from 11.11.2008 and ending on 10.10.2009 was granted at a rent of Rs.33,000/- per month;

(iii) that the said Mr. A.K. Rangaswami vide communication dated 28.08.2009 and legal notice dated 07.10.2009 asked the appellant/defendant to vacate the property on or before 10.10.2009 and also tendered to the appellant/defendant Rs.90,000/-in refund of the security deposit earlier paid by the appellant/defendant;

(iv) that the appellant/defendant however failed to vacate the property; and,

(v) that upon sale of the property by Sh. A.K. Rangaswami to the respondent/plaintiff on 30.12.2009 as aforesaid, the respondent/plaintiff also vide legal notice dated 28.01.2010 determined the tenancy of the appellant/defendant and asked him to vacate the premises. Upon the failure of the appellant/defendant to comply, the suit aforesaid for recovery of possession/ejectment was filed.

5. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, by filing written statement, on the grounds:

(i) that Sh. A.K. Rangaswami had promised the appellant/defendant that the lease would be renewed from time to time and further that he would sell the property to the appellant/defendant;

(ii) that Sh. A.K. Rangaswami had vide Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2009 expressly agreed to sell the property in favour of the appellant/defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.3,90,00,000/- and the appellant/defendant in part performance of the said Agreement to Sell had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as advance to the said Sh. A.K. Rangaswami;

(iii) that the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 are attracted and the appellant/defendant in part performance of the Agreement to Sell continued in possession of the premises;

(iv) that the said Sh. A.K. Rangaswami by selling the property to the respondent/plaintiff had violated the Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2009 with the appellant/defendant;

(v) that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant;

(vi) that the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to claim the relief of recovery of possession without seeking declaration of his title to the property;

(vii) that the title of Sh. A.K. Rangaswami himself was suspect and it was not certain whether Sh. A.K. Rangaswami or his wife Smt. Malathi Rangaswami had title to the property; and

(viii) that Sh. A.K. Rangaswami was a necessary party to the suit.

6. The respondent/plaintiff filed a replication denying that Sh. A.K. Rangaswami had ever agreed to sell the property to the respondent/plaintiff.

7. On the pleadings aforesaid of the parties, the following issues were framed on 21.02.2011:

“1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? OPP

2. Whether