JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This appeal arises out of the judgment dated December 11,2020 passed by the Ld. ADJ-07 (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi in the suit numbered CS No. 8259/2016 ('impugned judgment', for short). The appellants have made the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) set aside the impugned judgment & decree dated 11.12.2020 passed by Ms. Vandana Jain, Ld. ADJ-07, (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 8259/2016 titled as "Rajesh Anand Vs. Rahul Wadhwani & Anr. "; and

(b) pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. "

2. The respondent/ plaintiff had filed a suit before the Ld. Trial Court seeking possession and recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,07,500/- towards arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction along with interest. Before going into the merits of the controversy, I deem it appropriate to briefly reproduce the factual background pertaining to the instant matter as under:

i) The respondent/plaintiff is the owner /landlord of Shop No. 6 (Private No. 6A), adjoining to Shop No. 5, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi consisting of a basement and ground floor ('suit property' for short). The respondent had bought the property from his predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Pushpa Kapoor, who became the owner of the suit property vide registered partition deed dated June 17,2015. This partition is stated to have been done between Pushpa Kapoor and Mangal Sen Kapoor, after which the shop at No. 6, Lajpat Nagar was divided into two equal shares and the suit property came into the share of Pushpa Kapoor and the remaining half of the shop at No. 6, Lajpat Nagar went to the share of Mangal Sen Kapoor.

ii) Pushpa Kapoor sold her entire share in the suit property to the respondent vide sale deed dated September 7,2015 as registered on September 9, 2015. Respondent admits that he was informed by his predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Pushpa Kapoor about the suit property being occupied by the appellants/defendants as tenants sinceFebruary 1,2013 through an oral tenancy agreement with a monthly rent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The appellants were carrying out a business of selling foot wear under the name 'Sukanya Foot Wear' from the suit property. The respondent had been informed by his predecessor-in-interest that the appellants had not paid rent for 10 months, i.e., from November 01,2014 till the date of execution of sale deed and as per clause 2 of the said sale deed, the respondent was given the right to recover arrears of rent from the appellants,

iii. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent had also sent a legal notice dated October 10, 2015, to the appellants informing them about the sale of the suit property to the respondent. This notice was served upon the appellants on October 13, 2015. The appellants refused to pay the amount due to the respondent after which the respondent terminated the tenancy of the appellants vide legal notice dated January 7,2016. After which the respondent filed the suit before the Ld. Trial Court.

3. The respondent in the plaint had stated that he is the rightful owner of the suit property which has been purchased from his predecessor-in-interest, who in turn possessed a clear title over the suit property being party to the partition deed dated June 17,2015. Inthe replication, the chain of ownership regarding the suit property was clarified by the respondent. The stand of the respondent before the L d. Trial Court was as follows:

i) The respondent stated that the absolute owner of the shop No. 6, Lajpat Nagar was Bansi Lai, who had acquired the property by virtue of a registered lease deed dated May 14,1962. After the demise of Bansi Lal his successors became the co-owners of the estate left by Bansi Lai including the suit property which was in the possession of Pushpa Kapoor, widow of the