VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation/appellant impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 16.2.2012 by which the first appellate court has set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court. Trial Court had by its Judgment dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs so far as the relief/claim of permanent injunction against dispossession is concerned, but had decreed the suit for recovery of rent of Rs.391.84/- against the appellant/defendant/tenant. As a result of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court appellant/defendant has been restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs of the suit property forming a portion of Municipal no. 2650, Ward no. V, Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006.

2. The facts as pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs were that the appellant/defendant was a tenant in the suit property which was shown in red colour in the site plan filed. It was pleaded that the earlier owners sold the suit property to the respondents/plaintiffs by a registered Sale Deed dated 17.4.1997/Ex.PW1/1. On purchase of the property the earlier owner issued a Letter of Attornment dated 1.5.1997 to the appellant/defendant. The entire property, of which the suit/tenanted property formed a part, was in a dilapidated state and the appellant/defendant who had been running the school in the suit/tenanted premises had shifted the school to another location and the school therefore was not functioning from the suit/tenanted property for a long period of time of about 25 years. It is the further case of the respondents/plaintiffs that since the suit premises were not used, were in a dilapidated condition, hence, the same were abandoned by the appellant/defendant from September, 1997 and from when respondents/plaintiffs came to be in possession of the suit property. Respondents/plaintiffs sent a Legal Notice dated 27.1.1998 to put these facts on record. It is further averred in the plaint that on 22.4.1998 some persons claiming to be the employees of the appellant/defendant came to the suit/tenanted property and asked the respondent no.3/plaintiff no.3 to open the lock and threatened to dispossess the respondents/plaintiffs from the suit/tenanted premises. The subject suit therefore came to be filed that the appellant/defendant had no right to dispossess the respondents/plaintiffs from the suit/tenanted premises which was abandoned by the appellant/defendant. Arrears of rent till abandonment of Rs. 391.84/- were also claimed.

3. Appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that there was never any abandonment of the suit/tenanted premises. It was pleaded that respondents/plaintiffs forcibly prevented the appellant/defendant from entering into the suit/tenanted property and consequently a report was lodged with the police on 16.4.1998. Appellant/defendant stated that the respondents/plaintiffs had put a lock in the suit/tenanted premises on 29.4.1998 and which was illegal. The rent to the previous owner was said to be paid upto 31.3.1998 showing that there could not be abandonment in September, 1997. The action of the respondents/plaintiffs of forcibly putting lock on the premises so that the appellant’s/defendant’s employees cannot enter the premises was pleaded to be illegal. It was finally pleaded that the chowkidar of the appellant/defendant sought to enter the suit premises on 29.4.1998 and he was illegally not allowed to do so. The suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.

4. After pleadings were complete, trial court on 10.8.2000 framed the following issue:-

“i) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s. 478 of the D.M.C. Act? OPD

ii) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of parties? OPD

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for the recovery as asked for in plaint? OPP

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the de