JUDGMENT :

1. The five plaintiffs namely Chander Mohan Chadha, Chuniawati Chadha, Kamlesh Sawhney, Poonam Sawhney and Archna Mamgain, on 26th October, 1990, instituted this suit against the Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited for recovery of possession of shop no.13/14 (Private No.15) situated in Block-C, Connaught Place, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs.2,000/- per day as damages for unauthorised use and occupation by the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited of the said premises, pleading (i) that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs had let out the subject shop to Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- per month; (ii) that Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA left the premises in question; (iii) that the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956; (iv) that the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited is a different legal entity from Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA; (v) that Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA left the premises in January, 1982 and the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited came into possession of the premises without the consent, permission or authority of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs; (vi) that the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited is a trespasser and an unauthorised occupant in the premises; and, (vii) that the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited is in occupation of the premises ad measuring 1200 sq. ft., market letting value whereof was @ Rs.50/- sq. ft. per month.

2. The suit was entertained.

3. The defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited, instead of filing written statement, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). However the said application was withdrawn with liberty to take all pleas in the written statement.

4. The defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited contested the suit pleading (i) that the suit for possession was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; (ii) that the jurisdiction to try the disputes relating to tenanted premises lies only with the Rent Controller where the proceedings for recovery of possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act were pending between the parties; (iii) that the rent of the premises was being paid to Atma Ram Chadha, being the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs; (iv) that the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC as a similar petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act between the parties was pending in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi; (v) the issues involved in the suit as well as in the petition under Section 14(1)(b) were directly and substantially the same; (vi) that the plaintiffs, in the petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act have pleaded learning about the amalgamation of Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA with Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited in the year 1982 and the suit was barred by limitation; (vii) that the suit had not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction; (viii) denying that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property; (ix) that the shop in question was let out vide lease dated 11th July, 1966 to Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA which is in occupation or possession of the shop; (x) the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company Limited is a legal substitute of Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA and there is no change in tenancy; (xi) denying that Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA had left the premises; (xii) Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA was at all material time a branch in India of Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA; (xiii) the said branch in India of Singer Sewing Machine Company, USA, w.e.f. 01.01.1980, under a scheme of amalgamation approved and sanctioned by the High Court of Bombay, was amalgamated with the defendant Indian Sewing Machine Company