JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff being Civil Suit No.1634/2016.

2. Under the impugned judgment, the appellant/defendant has been directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises situated at the property bearing no.3/130, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi comprising of Shop no.4 on the ground floor along with a small portion of the first floor consisting of four rooms, toilets, etc. admeasuring 110 sq. yards. The learned Trial Court has further directed the appellant to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2015 to 31.07.2016 with 15% annual enhancement thereon till vacant possession of the property is handed over to the respondent.

3. The appellant while working as a caretaker of M/s Jyoti Music Pvt Ltd. being run by one Mr. Puran Singh Kainth who was the erstwhile owner of the suit premises, was initially permitted to stay in a portion of the same without payment of any amount to the owner. Subsequently, when M/s Jyoti Music Pvt. Ltd. came to be wound up, the appellant requested Mr. Kainth to permit him to occupy the suit premises as a tenant and, accordingly, at the appellant’s request the suit premises was leased out to him for a period of 11 months vide lease deed dated 02.03.2010 at a monthly rent of Rs.3,600/-. The appellant accordingly paid rent to Mr. Kainth for a few months, where after he stopped paying any rent.

4. In these circumstances Mr. Kainth, vide a registered sale deed executed on 20.11.2014, sold the aforesaid property bearing no. 3/130, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi to a private charitable trust namely Shiv Shakti Sansthan (Regd.) for a consideration of Rs.48 lakh and an additional sum of Rs.10 lakh was paid towards furnitures, fixtures and fittings. At the time of the execution of the sale deed, the Trust was handed over the actual physical possession of the entire property, except the portion which was in the possession of the appellant pursuant to the lease deed dated 02.03.2010, even though he had stopped paying rent after July, 2010.

5. The Trust therefore requested the appellant to vacate the tenanted premises, which he refused to do and instead started claiming ownership of the suit premises. Faced with the situation where the appellant was not only continuing to stay in the suit premises without paying rent but had also started misbehaving with the trustees, the Trust on 05.03.2015, instituted the subject suit seeking a decree of possession and mesne profits against the appellant.

6. Soon after filing of the suit, the Trust passed a resolution on 25.03.2015 to the effect that all court cases, as also all documents to be submitted in respect of the Trust, would be signed and filed in the name of its President, Vice President and General Secretary. Based on this resolution, the respondents sought amendment of the plaint by substituting the aforesaid three office bearers as plaintiffs instead of the Trust, which application came to be allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated 27.03.2015.

7. Before the trial Court, the appellant filed his written statement claiming therein that the suit was not properly valued and that the market value of the same was more than Rs.1 crore. It was further claimed that pursuant to an oral agreement to sell entered into with the erstwhile owner Mr. Kainth on 15.01.2000, the appellant was now holding the suit premises as its rightful owner. It was further claimed that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.8 lakh as part sale consideration to Mr. Kainth in cash by way of installments. It was further claimed that though Mr. Kainth had assured the appellant that he will execute the sale deed in his favour, his intention had become dishone