Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:--

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 15th March, 2013 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Central-09, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 50/04 (UID No. 02401C5982592004) filed by the respondents No. 1 to 21 against the predecessor of the three appellants for the relief of ejectment/mesne profits; the respondent No. 22 was impleaded as the defendant No. 2 to the suit though no relief was claimed against her) of ejectment of the appellants from the two and a half storeyed building constructed on plot No. C-2/10, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi -- 110 057 and for recovery from the appellants of Rs. 9,00,000/- for the period from 1st May, 2003 to 31st January, 2004 and mesne profits, @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per month for the period from 1st February, 2004 to 31st December, 2006 and @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from 1st January, 2007 till the date of vacation of the ejectment.

2. The appeal came up before this Court first on 21st August, 2013 when though not prima facie agreeing with the challenge in the appeal, but to obviate any technicalities, this being a first appeal, and for the reason that the impugned judgment also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on each of the respondents/plaintiffs and which did not appear to be justified in law, notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned.

3. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 and the counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 16 and 18 to 20 have appeared.

4. Though the respondents No. 17, 21 & 22 remain unserved and the counsel for the appellants/defendants on 3rd December, 2013 contended that the appeal should be adjourned for service of the said respondents/plaintiffs but it was the plea of the counsels appearing for the remaining respondents/plaintiffs that all the respondents/plaintiffs have a common interest and were represented by one counsel only throughout the suit from which this appeal arises and they were not appearing for the unserved respondents/plaintiffs only for the reason of non-availability of the Vakalatnama and the same should not be allowed to come in the way of the hearing of the appeal.

5. The counsel for the appellants/defendants and the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs were accordingly heard on the appeal and judgment was reserved.

6. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:-

(a) that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants was inducted as a tenant in the said property, sometimes in the year 1973 at a rent of Rs. 2,400/- per month by the predecessor-in-interest namely Dr. Sham Lal Gupta of the respondents/plaintiffs;

(b) that on the demise on 5th February, 1991 of Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, the respondents/plaintiffs succeeded as co-owners and landlords of the property

(c) that even during the lifetime of Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, there were several litigations between him and the predecessor of the appellants/defendants;

(d) that at the time of demise of Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, the petition filed by him for eviction of the predecessor of the appellants/defendants from the property on the ground under Section 14 (1) (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was pending and which petition was also pending on 10th February, 2004 at the time of institution of the suit from which this appeal arises;

(e) that in the aforesaid eviction petition an order under Section 15(2) of the Rent Act, directing the predecessor of the appellants/defendants to pay/deposit rent had been made and by subsequent orders from time to time in the said eviction petition, on applications filed by respondents/plaintiffs/their predecessor, the predecessor of the appellants/defendants had been directed to increase the rent by 10% per month every three years;

(f) that vide order dated 18th September, 2000, the rent was directed to be deposited @ Rs. 3,194.40p w.e.f. May, 2000;

(g) that the respondents/plaintiffs got served notice dated 15th March, 2003 on the predecessor of the appellants/defendants for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document