JUDGMENT

IA 1789/2022 (under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC)

1. The present suit seeks the following reliefs: -

'(a) pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no. 1&2, for providing symbolic possession of half basement and the entire ground floor (in which Defendant No.3 is a tenant) and the physical and vacant possession of the remaining half of the basement and the entire first floor of the suit property in terms of sale deed dated 30.08.2017.

(b) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no. 1 to 3 directing them to pay to the plaintiffs the arrears of rents effective from 01.09.2017 (subsequent to the execution of sale deed dated 30.08.2017) to the present date of filing of suit along with 18% interest and such future rent.

(c) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no. 1 and 2 directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 12,55,740/- to the plaintiffs, being the security deposit collected by the defendants no. 1and 2 from defendant no.3 in terms of lease deed and which remain payable to defendant no.3 by the plaintiffs in the event of termination of lease deed.

(d) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.3 directing them to attorn the lease rights of the hitherto owners to the plaintiffs or alternatively to execute a fresh lease deed.

(e) Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby permanently injuncting and restraining the defendants and their servants, representatives, agents etc. from alienating, selling, transferring, letting out or in any other manner creating third party rights or interests or charge or encumbrance in, and/or parting with possession of the suit property, to any other person except the plaintiffs;

(f) Pass any such further decree or order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants;

(g) Award costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.'

2. The suit has been filed on the averment that an Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.2017 was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for selling the entire basement, ground floor and first floor, without roof rights of the property bearing No. AE-90, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 built up on land measuring 247.50 sq. meters (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The total consideration mentioned in the Agreement to Sell dated 02.08.2017 is stated to be Rs. 2.85 Crores. It is further averred that on 30.08.2017, a Sale Deed in respect of the suit property was executed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the total sale consideration of Rs. 2.85 Crores. However, although it was mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 30.08.2017 that the possession of the suit property has been delivered to the plaintiffs at the spot, in actual fact, the possession of the suit property was only symbolically delivered to the plaintiffs. The entire ground floor and half portion of the basement of the suit property continues to remain in possession of the Bank of India (defendant no.3) as tenant, whereas physical possession of the other half portion of the basement and the entire first floor continues to remain in possession of defendant nos. 1 and 2.

3. An Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.2017 is also stated to have been executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the entire second floor, third floor and roof rights in the same property bearing no. No. AE-90, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 built up on land measuring 247.50 sq. meters. However, no relief qua the said Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.2017 has been claimed in the present suit and the same is stated to be the subject matter of CS (OS) 258/2018.

4. The present application has been filed on the averment that the factum of the execution of the Sale Deed dated 30.08.2017 in respect of the sui