Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. The plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit have filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing of a decree of possession in their favour and against the defendants in respect of two rooms, as per site plan annexed of the property bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, in view of the admissions made in the pleadings and documents by the defendants.

2. Briefly delineated, the case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is that they are the owners of the property bearing No. 752-A (South Side) measuring 210 Sq. Yds. situated at Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, having purchased the said property vide Sale Deed dated 7.1.2011 from the absolute owners, namely, Smt. Uma Devi, Sh. Sunil Saini, Sh. Anil Singh Saini, Sh. Vipin Saini, Sh. Prashant Saini, Sh. Sanjeev Singh Saini, Smt. Pushpa Saini, Sh. Mohit Saini, Sh. Keshav Saini, Mrs. Priti Saini, Sh. Shailender Singh Saini, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini, Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh. Kanwar Gopal Singh Saini, Sh. Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh Saini. The absolute owners had given the suit property on rent to one M/s Vaishali International having its office at Yashwant Place, New Delhi. The said M/s Vaishali International earlier had its office at Defence Colony, New Delhi and, therefore, utilized the suit property for the purpose of residence of the drivers and other employees of the Company. M/s Vaishali International ran into financial difficulties and surrendered the tenancy of the suit property in favour of the erstwhile owners. Though M/s Vaishali International ceased to be the tenant in the said property and even called upon its employees to vacate the said property, some of the employees started working for the erstwhile owners and, therefore, stayed on as domestic help.

3. The plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell with the erstwhile owners of the property sometime in January, 2010. Since the left over employees, who had stayed on as domestic help, were using some rooms in the premises, the plaintiffs requested them to vacate the premises. These employees demanded money to vacate the property on the pretext that they had got some paint/polish done in their respective rooms. The plaintiffs accordingly with a view to resolve the dispute amicably agreed to reimburse the amount claimed by them and entered into an oral settlement with them and made the payment to them in accordance therewith. It is alleged in the plaint that though all the other occupants left the premises and abided by the settlement, the defendant No.1, Sh. Ram Chander Pathak turned dishonest and refused to vacate the premises. The defendant No.1 was the driver in the Company, M/s Vaishali International. Initially, he also agreed to vacate the premises and took part payment of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiffs. The balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid on the defendant No.1 on his vacating the suit property. However, thereafter the defendant No.1 refused to vacate the premises, though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the balance amount. The documents signed by the defendant No.1 evidencing the receipt of the amount from the plaintiffs have been filed alongwith the plaint.

4. It is alleged in the plaint that during this period, the defendant No.1 also brought one of his relations into one of the vacated rooms, namely, Mr. Jagannath Mishra, and the latter was also made a party to the settlement; and the plaintiffs were also coerced into paying the money to the said Jagannath Mishra as well. The defendant no.1, however, flatly refused to vacate the premises and he, since the date of the purchase of the suit property, is an unauthorized occupant in the property. The status of the defendant No.1 after termination of his licence is, therefore, that of an illegal occupant and a trespasser. It is alleged that the defendants are