VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 4.6.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 26.2.2016; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the premises no.A-345-346, J.J. Colony, Khyala, Delhi. This property is constructed on the ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with the suit being filed only with respect to ground floor of property no.A-345 and 346 which was in possession of the appellant/defendant. Respondent/plaintiff has also been granted damages/mesne profits at Rs.4,000/- per month from May, 2011 till the date of recovery of possession alongwith interest @ 6% per annum.

2(i) The facts pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff were that the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property from Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur by means of documentation dated 20.5.2011. The original allottee of the suit property no.A-345 was one Sh. Ram Avtar and the original allottee of property no.A-346 was Sh. Roshan Lal. The original Demand Letter dated 5.9.1985 from DDA to Sh. Ram Avtar with respect to property no.A-345 has been filed and proved by the respondent/plaintiff as Ex.PW1/5 and the similar letter of the same date in favour of Sh. Roshan Lal with respect to property no.A-346 has been proved as Ex.PW1/16. Sh. Ram Avtar and Sh. Roshan Lal were real brothers. It is not disputed by either of the parties that Sh. Ram Avtar and Sh. Roshan Lal are admittedly the first allottees of the suit property from DDA. Sh. Ram Avtar had firstly executed the documents Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/10 being general power of attorney, agreement to sell, Will, receipt and affidavit in favour of one Ms. Kiran Kapoor with respect to property no.A-345 on 27.12.1996. On the same date, Sh. Roshan Lal with respect to property no.A-346 executed similar documents in favour of Smt. Rekha Tandon being the documents Ex.PW/17 to Ex.PW1/21 and which are the general power of attorney, agreement to sell, Will, receipt and affidavit. Smt. Kiran Kapoor executed the documents Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/15 in favour of Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur and the same are dated 19.1.2007. Smt. Rekha Tandon executed the documents Ex.PW1/22 to Ex.PW1/26 being the general power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt and possession letter in favour of Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur on 10.11.2006. Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur tranferred rights in the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff Smt. Neha vide documentation dated 20.5.2011 and which have been proved as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 being the general power of attorney, agreement to sell, possession letter and receipt.

(ii) As per the case in the plaint, appellant/defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property by the earlier owner Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur at a rent of Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f 1.5.2008. Appellant/defendant is said to have not paid the rent w.e.f 19.5.2011. The subject suit for possession and damages therefore came to be filed against the appellant/defendant by the respondent/plaintiff.

3. Respondent/plaintiff in the suit filed her written statement and pleaded that she was the owner of the suit property because she had purchased rights in the same for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each from the previous owners Sh. Ram Avtar and Sh. Roshan Lal vide Receipts dated 13.1.2003 (Ex.DW1/1, colly). It was pleaded that the chain of documentation executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and originating from Sh. Ram Avtar and Sh. Roshan Lal were forged and fabricated documents and that the respondent/plaintiff wants to illegally grab possession of the suit property.

4. After pleadings were completed, trial court on 6.2.2013 framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of decree of possession, as prayed? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is e