The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of a landlord-tenant relationship based on documentary evidence and admissions by the parties, and the importance of expeditious adjudication of suits involving property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The Plaintiff/Petitioner (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1st June, 2018, by which the ld. ADJ has dismissed the application under Order XV-A CPC.

2. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of shop bearing No.6 (private No.6A), adjoining Shop No.5, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110024 (hereinafter, “suit property”). The Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from one Ms. Pushpa Kapoor vide registered sale deed dated 7th September, 2015. A copy of the registered sale deed has been placed on record. In clause 2 of the said sale deed, the earlier owner had informed the Plaintiff that the suit property was under the tenancy of Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 - Mr. Rahul Wadhwani (hereinafter, “Defendant No.1”). As per this clause in the sale deed, the tenant was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/- and the right to recover the same was vested in the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent with interest, mesne profits and permanent injunction.

3. After completion of the pleadings in the suit, the following issues were framed:

“A. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of suit property bearing no. 6 (private no. 6A), Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024? OPP.

B. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree towards arrears of rent of Rs. 24,07,500/- from 1.11.2014 till 31.01.2016? OPP

C. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP

D. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any damages / mesne profits / user charges if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.

E. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPD

F. Whether the defendant no.1 has become the owner of suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD

G. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as for the purpose of court fee? OPD.

H. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

I., Relief.”

4. The suit is pending for recordal of evidence of the parties. At this stage, the Plaintiff moved an application under Order XV-A CPC, seeking deposit/payment of market rent as no amount was being paid by the Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter, “Defendants”). The said application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 1st June, 2018. The observations of the ld. ADJ are as under:

“10. This provision pre-supposes the relationship of landlord and tenant or the licence and licencee between parties which is not so admittedly. In order to decide this application, this court can not go into the merit of the defence taken up by the defendant. The defendant had taken the defence of becoming the owner of the suit shop by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff had not filed any such agreement or receipt showing payment of rent of Rs.1,50,000/- by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff or his predecessor in interest i.e. Smt. Pushpa Kapoor. The apprehension which the plaintiff has shown in para no. 11 of the application can not redress by passing order this application. For the reasons, stated above, this application is found to be devoid of any merits, hence dismissed.”

5. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendants are admittedly tenants. The sale deed and clause 2 therein is relied upon by the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the wife of Defendant No.1, i.e. Defendant No.2/Respondent No.2, filed a complaint before the SHO, Lajpat Nagar, making various allegations against the Plaintiff. In the said complaint, it was clearly admitted that the Defendant is a tenant in the property. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the said complaint was taken cognizance of and an FIR was also registered against the Plaintiff, which is still pending investigation. It is further submitted that in the cross-examination conducted in the said FIR, Defendant No.1 - Mr. Rahul Wadhwani, himself admitted