The main legal point established is the significance of evidence in establishing privity of contract and liability for unauthorized occupation in property disputes.

A.K. Pathak, J.

1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7th January, 2010 passed by the trial court whereby suit for possession, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction filed by the appellant against respondent/defendant has been dismissed. Appellant alleged in the plaint that it was a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its registered office at 313/1, Inderlok, Delhi. Appellant was exclusive owner of property bearing No. 5354, First Floor, Ward No. XV, Ladoo Ghati, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055. Suit was being filed by it through its manager Narender Singh, who was duly authorized to do so vide Board Resolution dated 7th December, 2007 passed by the appellant. M/s. Runwell India Private Limited was sister concern of appellant. Respondent was employee of the said company and was permitted to reside in two rooms at the first floor of appellant's aforesaid property. Permission so granted to respondent was co-terminus with his employment. Respondent was permitted to occupy the suit property on a license basis at the pleasure of appellant. On 8th September, 2006 respondent voluntarily left his job, thus, permission granted to him to occupy the said two rooms came to an end with effect from 8th September, 2006. Respondent while leaving the job undertook in writing to vacate the suit property by 23rd September, 2006. On humanitarian grounds appellant allowed the respondent to occupy said two rooms till 23rd September, 2006. However, respondent did not honor his commitment and declined to vacate the said rooms despite repeated requests of appellant. On 18th November, 2006 Narender Singh visited the said property to take over the possession but respondent refused to vacate, inasmuch as, forcibly occupied open verandah in front of the said rooms (hereinafter the two rooms and open verandah are being referred to as the "suit property"). Respondent also removed steel fixtures, electric fittings, water pipes etc., thereby compelling the appellant to lodge complaints at police station Pahar Ganj on 2nd December, 2006 and 25th December, 2006 respectively. Vide notice dated 29th May, 2007 respondent was called upon to vacate the suit property but to no effect. Hence the suit.

2. Respondent filed written statement alleging therein that he was never an employee of M/s. Runwell India Private Limited nor was ever put in possession of suit premises during the course of alleged employment. He alleged that he was working as a driver with Kishore Lal right from 1994 onwards. In fact he had worked almost in all the concerns/companies with which Kishore Lal was associated. Respondent was inducted in the suit property as a tenant by Kishore Lal and his daughter, namely, Anu Sabharwal in the year 2005 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. Respondent was also paying Rs. 100/- towards electricity and water charges. Thus, the suit was barred under Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Respondent was depositing Rs. 500/- per month with Kishore Lal right from 1998 onwards and when he asked Kishore Lal to refund the said amount so that he could invest the same in interest generating FDR in some bank, an altercation broke out between the respondent and Kishore Lal and the present litigation is outcome of the said altercation. Narender Singh was accountant of Kishore Lal. Narender Singh obtained signatures of respondent on number of blank papers and the same have been misused. Respondent denied that suit property was given to him by the appellant on license basis. It was further alleged that M/s. Runwell India Private Limited was a necessary party and in its absence suit was liable to be dismissed. Respondent further alleged that Kishore Lal and his muscle men tried to forcibly evict him and his family members but they could not succeed in their ill designs. Respondent denied that he had agreed to vacate the suit property by 23rd September, 2006. Respondent de