The establishment of ownership and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant are pivotal in determining possession and recovery of arrears of rent.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely, learned ADJ-04 (NW), Rohini Courts in RCA No.33/2015, whereby the said first appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Sr. Civil Judge cum Rent Controller in Suit No.381/2012, preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, has been set aside.

2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit to seek the relief of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, and damages/mesne profits against the appellant/defendant by claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property bearing no.C-448, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi. The plaintiff claimed that the appellant/defendant was a tenant on the first and second floor constructed in an area admeasuring 32 sq. mtrs. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit property from the previous owner Sh. Shambu Prasad Goyal against payment of valuable consideration vide agreement to sell, GPA, SPA, receipt, affidavit, possession letter and registered will – all dated 31.03.1997.

3. The plaintiff claimed that the monthly rent was initially fixed at Rs.3,200/- besides water and electricity charges on 01.07.1998. However, the same was periodically increased and became Rs.7,000/- w.e.f January 2010. The defendant had paid the rent lastly in April 2010. Thereafter, the defendant did not make payment of rent and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. May 2010. The plaintiff stated that he served a notice dated 06.06.2012 through his counsel terminating the contractual tenancy by the end of 30.06.2012, and calling upon the defendant to make payment of rent @ Rs.7,000/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.05.2010 till 30.06.2012 alongwith interest. Since the premises was not vacated and rent not paid, the plaintiff filed the suit in question.

4. The appellant/defendant filed his written statement to contest the suit. The defendant denied that there was any rent agreement between the parties. He also denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. He stated that the suit property comprising of ground floor was purchased in the year 1997 by both – the plaintiff and the defendant, from Sh. Shambhu Prasad Goel and that the sale consideration was equally contributed by them. He also claimed that it was agreed that the documents such as agreement to sell, GPA, SPA, receipt, affidavit, possession letter and registered will etc. would be executed in favour of the plaintiff. He also claimed that the defendant of his own resources built up the first and second floor comprising of two rooms, kitchen and toilet on the first floor, and one room, kitchen and toilet on the second floor. He claimed that the parties were in occupation of the respective portions, i.e. the plaintiff was occupying the ground floor, and the defendant was occupying the first and second floor constructed by his own resources.

5. He pleaded that it was agreed between the parties that after the construction is over, the seller Shambhu Prasad Goel shall execute the sale deed in favour of both the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant also pleaded that disputes arose between the parties on 01.11.2004. At that stage, an agreement was entered between them that the defendant shall sell the first and second floor to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.3,37,500/-. He claimed that the plaintiff had also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as part payment/token amount. However, later on, the plaintiff resiled.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the court, inter alia, framed the issue – whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed for. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff tendered in evidence the conveyance deed executed by the DDA in his favour as Ex. PW-1/1. I may note that this conveyance deed was executed on 14.09.2012, i.e. after the filing of the suit on 18.08.2012. He also led in eviden