The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession extinguishes tenancy rights and precludes the assertion of such rights under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. - This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02/South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/ (hereinafter as the learned ''Trial Court) in CS No.194/2012 whereby the suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of property No.20, Yusuf Sarai, Main Market, New Delhi -110016 (hereinafter referred as suit property'') was decreed under Order XXII Rule 6 CPC in favour of the respondents herein.

2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are the respondents are admittedly the owners of the building bearing No.20/5, Yusuf Sarai Market, Aurobindo Marg, near Green Park Metro Station, New Delhi - 110016; the suit property being one shop (two storyed) admeasuring 300 (10x30) square feet on each floor comprised in the said building was in the tenancy of appellant since 1960''s (he being a tenant under the then owners / landlords at a rental of Rs.8/- per month). The appellant/tenant paid rentals of suit property to him @ Rs.8/- per month for the period ending 1989. Thereafter, he fell into arrears and did not tender, pay or even deposit, the rentals that accrued in respect of suit property either to the owner/landlord in the Court of the learned Rent Controller or Delhi. The appellant invariably continued to assert his tenancy rights in respect of suit property till August 2008.

3. On 28.08.2008 the appellant wrote to the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court once again propounding / asserting that he was a tenant in the suit property at a rental of Rs.8/- per month under the owners/ landlords namely Sh.Raghubir Singh and Sh.Amarjit Singh. On 08-09-11.2008, the appellant instituted in the Court of learned District Judge / Sr. Civil Judge (South District) New Delhi three civil suits (a) for the relief of declaration; (b) for the relief of perpetual injunction; and (c) for recovery of damages on account of losses suffered by the appellant and / his stocks due to seepage of water into the suit property. In all these three suits, the appellant for the first time alleged/propounded the facts that he has become an owner by adverse possession of shop at ground floor, first floor as well as on the second floor room situated at 20/5, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.

4. Immediately thereafter, the owners/landlords (respondents herein) served upon the appellant a notice dated 11.04.2009 in terms of Section 114-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 intimating him about the forfeiture of his tenancy rights in respect of the suit property. The aforesaid notice dated 11.04.2009 was duly served upon the appellant but was never adverted to by him. He did not pay heed to the requests of the aforesaid notice dated 11.04.2009. Consequently, on 05.10.2009, the respondents herein (being the plaintiffs/respondents in this appeal) instituted a suit, inter alia, for recovery of possession in respect of the premises in suit against the appellant/defendant, contemporaneously seeking certain other reliefs, including mesne profits. With the passage of time, all these four (4) suits came (by virtue of administrative orders passed by the learned District Judge (District: South), Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in one Court of competent jurisdiction. Issues in all these causes were framed by the successor court on 20.06.2013.

5. After the framing of the issues (keeping in view the clear and categorical admissions by the defendant / appellant herein, the plaintiffs / respondents herein in the fourth suit instituted by them against the appellant herein (for recovery of actual physical possession of the suit property) preferred in the learned Trial Court an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking from the learned Trial Court a decree on ejectment / possession against the defendant / appellant herein The defendant / appellant herein filed a detailed reply (written statement)