S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. These two appeals involve common questions of fact and law. In one, the appellant was plaintiff, (CS (OS) 51/2006- hereafter "the possession suit"); he sought a decree of possession of the suit property (No. K-70B, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi-110016) and mesne profits at Rs. 2.50 lakhs per month from 01.07.2005. In the second suit (CS(OS) 2279/2006 referred to hereafter as “the specific performance suit” or “the Purchaser’s suit”), the appellant landlord (hereafter "Dr. Jindal" and also referred to as "Vendor") was arrayed as a defendant, by the plaintiff, proposed buyer/tenant, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (hereafter "purchaser" or "tenant"); the plaintiff/Purchaser claimed a decree for specific performance. The landlord's suit was dismissed and that of the Purchaser was decreed. Therefore, these two appeals.

2. The two suits were consolidated by the order of Court dated 28.04.2009 in CS(OS) 51/2006. The possession suit was premised on the footing that an Agreement to Sell- dated 01.11.2004- between the parties- was no longer binding on the landlord/proposed seller and latter had no rights of a lessee in the suit premises. Dr. Shiv Pal Jindal was t