Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. This appeal seeks to assail the decree for possession dated 11th January, 2005 in respect of premises bearing No. B-32, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 in favour of the respondents and against the appellants.

2. The case of the respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the suit filed by them in the trial court being Suit No. 217/1995, was that they were the owners/landlords of the aforesaid residential premises, where Dr. M.C.Dawar was a tenant at a monthly rent of `58.63 exclusive of other charges. The tenancy of Dr. M.C.Dawar was duly terminated by a legal notice dated 07.06.1974, to which a reply dated 12.07.1974 was sent by Dr. M.C.Dawar. Dr. M.C.Dawar died on or about 08.11.1977 as a statutory tenant in view of the fact that his tenancy had already been terminated during his lifetime.

3. After his demise, his widow Smt. Leelawati Dawar became the statutory tenant to the exclusion of all other legal heirs of late Dr. M.C.Dawar in accordance with Section 2 (1) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (as amended by Act 18 of 1976 w.e.f. 01.12.1975). Smt. Leelawati Dawar allegedly did not pay the rent and damaged the tenanted premises which resulted in service of legal notice dated 12.02.1990 to her by the respondents herein. The notice, though was addressed only to Smt. Leelawati Dawar, was replied to by all the legal heirs of late Dr. M.C.Dawar (the defendants 1 to 5 in the suit) by letter dated 29.03.1990. Significantly, in the said reply, it was denied by all the legal heirs of late Dr. M.C.Dawar that the respondents were the owners of the suit premises. In view of the said denial of title, the respondents filed a suit for possession and damages against Smt. Leelawati Dawar and the other legal heirs of late Dr. M.C.Dawar under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground of forfeiture of tenancy. Smt Leelawati Dawar died during the pendency of the suit in November, 1993. After her death, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial court on 01.10.1994 holding that as Smt.Leelawati Dawar had inherited the tenancy rights of late Dr. M.C. Dawar, consequent to her death only the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

4. The instant suit was instituted on 30.03.1994 on the ground that since Smt.Leelawati Dawar had died and all the rights of late M.C.Dawar had come to an end in respect of the suit premises as per the Delhi Rent Control Act, the appellants were not legally entitled to retain the possession of the premises. It was alleged that since the appellants were illegally occupying the premises, they were liable to pay damages @ Rs. 4,000/- per day, but only a sum of Rs. 4,99,296/- in all was being claimed in order to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. It was prayed that a decree for possession with regard to the suit premises be passed, and an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC be held for determining the actual damages and compensation payable by the appellants to the respondents.

5. A joint written statement was filed by the defendants 1 to 4 (the appellants herein), while the defendant No. 5 filed a separate written statement, more or less adopting the same pleas as those taken by the defendants 1 to 4 in their written statement. In a nutshell, the defence raised by the appellants/defendants was that:-

I. The present suit is barred by res judicata, as a similar suit filed by the respondents against the appellants had been dismissed by the Court of Shri N.K.Kaushik, the then Civil Judge, Delhi by his judgment and decree dated 01.10.1994.

II. The suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the appellants are the tenants-in-common in the suit premises, and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

III. The alleged previous notice terminating the tenancy of Dr. M.C.Dawar dated 07.06.1974 was not valid, and even assuming the same to be valid, would be deemed to be waived by issuance of a fresh notice dated 12.02.1990.

6. On me