The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not applicable to the suit property, and thus, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to order eviction.

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The appellant vide this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended has assailed the judgment dated 26.02.2016 of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the judgment of the First Appellate Court of the learned Additional District Judge-03, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54614/2016 which upheld the judgment dated 26.02.2016 of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Control, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff thereof arrayed as the respondent to the present RSA 133/2018 vide which the respondent had sought recovery of possession of the suit shop bearing Shop No. 13, in Property No. WZ-58-61, Vashist Park, Pankha Road, New Delhi on the grounds of termination of tenancy of the appellant through a legal notice wherein the appellant had claimed himself to be a licensee of a third person, was decreed in favour of the plaintiff of the Suit No. 103/15 i.e. the respondent to the Regular Civil Appeal No. 54614/2016 which upheld the judgment of the learned Trial Court.

2. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.02.2016 put forth the facts to the effect : -

“2. The details of the version of the plaintiff emerge from the similar plaint and affidavit in evidence (Ex. P-1) tendered by the plaintiff (PW-1) as the sole witness on his behalf.

3. PW-1 asserted that he purchased the suit property from Subhash Chander and Ramesh Kumar through documents in the nature of GPA etc (Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/6) dated 07.01.1998. The similar documents executed by the initial owner namely Ganga Singh in favour of Subhash Chander and Ramesh Kumar were Ex.PW1/7 toPW1/11.

4. It was stated with respect to the tenancy of the defendant that he was inducted as a tenant but was irregular in making payment of rent since inception of the tenancy and had failed to tender the rent since October 2012. The tenancy was monthly in nature with the rent being Rs. 3500/- per month. The plaintiff proceeded to terminate the tenancy through legal notice dated 20.05.2013 (Ex. PW1/13).

5. Apart from the relief of possession, the suit also prays for grant of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for the period 01.10.2012 to 31.05.2013 alongwith interest @15% per annum. The last prayer relates to damages @Rs. 1,000/- per day.

6. The defendant, who also deposed as DW-1, contended in his written statement and affidavit in evidence (Ex. DW1/A) that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit as he was neither the owner nor the landlord. The defendant asserted that he was a licensee albeit without license fee since 05.06.2008 from the real owner namely Khurshid Ali, The suit shop, though admitted to be bearing shop No. 13 was claimed to be situated in Khasra No. 26/1 instead of Khasra No. 6/1 as depicted by the plaintiff. The defendant admitted the receipt of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff and stated that he had replied through letter dated 04.06.2013 (Ex. D1 and also Ex. PWl/16).

7. The other witnesses for the defendant were Khurshid Ali (DW-2) and an official from the office of Sub Registrar who placed on record copies of two sale deeds (Ex. DW3/A and DW3/B respectively). These sale deeds were purportedly executed by Khurshid Ali in favour of one Rakesh Jaiswal and by Rakesh Jaiswal in favour of one Abhishek Rastogi respectively.”

3. The issues framed in the said suit were to the effect:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff has a locus standi to file the present suit? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent, if so, for which period and for what rate? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages and mesne profits? OPP

5. Relief.”

4. Before the learned Trial Court it was contended that the defendant had failed to establish the existence of a license arrangement with Khurshid Ali (