JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Assailed herein is an order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Trial Court dismissing an Application filed by the Petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in CS/DJ/No.490/2018. The narrative in the present case would also require reference to certain facts and events detailed in the judgement passed by this Court in CS(OS) No.2932/2011, which was decided on 30.01.2014 and Decree was passed on 03.03.2014.

2. Petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company and the Directors of the Company are Mr. Binay Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Mr. Vikas Mishra and Mrs. Tulika Mishra. As per the case set up by the Petitioner, it had purchased premises bearing No.K-1 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi measuring 980 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property") from one Shri Mohinder Singh Verma vide Sale Deed registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 08.10.1973.

3. On 08.01.1976 Petitioner leased out the First and Second floor of the main building as well as one garage and two servant quarter rooms above the garage on the Second floor of the Servant Quarter Block to Respondent No. 2 herein. Lease was initially for a period of three years commencing from 08.01.1976 but was subsequently renewed until Respondent No. 2 vacated the premises on 22.07.2014. Respondent No. 2 is admittedly a Government of India Undertaking.

4. Respondent No. 1 herein is the son of one Mr. Dalip Singh, a former contractual employee of Respondent No. 2 and was residing with his father in one servant quarter room on the second floor of the servant quarter block (above garage) having an area of about 120 square feet (hereinafter referred to as "Premises"). The right to reside in the Premises was available to the father of Respondent No. 1 till the tenure of his service or till the vacation of the Leased premises by Respondent No. 2, whichever was earlier.

5. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of another litigation that ensued between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 herein. In the said Suit, being CS(OS) 2932/2011, Respondent No. 2 was impleaded as Defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 1 had allegedly purchased the suit property through one Mr. S.K. Malhotra in 1985, to whom the Company has sold the Suit Property allegedly in 1971. Defendant No. 2 was an Associate of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 was a Chartered Accountant, who had allegedly executed/fabricated and forged documents in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to show the transfer of suit property. It appears that through a Meeting of the Board of Directors allegedly convened on 07.10.2011 as well as through subsequent EGMs, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed certain E-Forms and other documents on the basis of which they claimed to be the Shareholders of the Petitioner. Complaints with the Police and Economic Offences Wing (EOW) were filed by the Petitioner against the said Defendants.

6. Apprehending the alienation of the property by Defendant Nos.1-3, Petitioner filed a Suit in this Court, being CS(OS) 2932/2011, with respect to the Suit Property and Respondent No. 2 was also impleaded therein as portions of the suit property were leased to Respondent No. 2. Petitioner was Plaintiff No.5 and other Directors of the Company were Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4. Reliefs sought were as under:

"a) declaration that the Plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the only shareholders of the Plaintiff No.5 Company and Plaintiff No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are only directors of the Plaintiff No.5 Company;

b) declaration that the purported e-form