IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized the need for a full-fledged trial to appreciate the defense and justiciability of the defense by the Court, and the importance of expeditious disposal of the suits as directed by the Supreme Court and the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the suit filed by the respondent, that is, Civil Suit No. 867/2018, titled as Madhuri Kumar vs. Karan Kapoor, pending adjudication before the learned Additional District Judge-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, to this Court and seeking direction for the same to be tagged/heard alongwith the suit filed by the plaintiff, that is, CS(OS) No.397/2019, titled as Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar & Ors., which is pending adjudication before this Court.

2. For considering the prayer made, a few basic facts would need to be mentioned.

3. Civil Suit 867/2018 has been filed by the respondent claiming herself to be the owner/landlady of the property bearing no. B-228, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash - I, New Delhi-110048 (hereinafter referred to as the `subject property') and against the petitioner herein, claiming that the petitioner is a lessee in the said property under lease deed dated 07.08.2011 as extended on 07.08.2013. On the other hand, the petitioner, while not denying the fact of the ownership of the subject property of the respondent, the tenancy, and the rent, in the written statement has pleaded that the parties had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 22.04.2017 (ATS-I) and the final Agreement to Sell dated 30.12.2017 (ATS-III); the son of the respondent had also entered into another agreement dated 25.05.2017 (ATS-II) with the petitioner regarding properties in Amloh, Punjab. The petitioner claimed that in terms of the Agreement(s) to Sell, the petitioner is entitled to withhold the possession of the subject property.

4. The respondent, in the above referred Suit, filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short `CPC'), 1908. The said application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 01.12.2020. Review against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 17.02.2021. The petitioner herein filed an appeal challenging the above order, being RFA No.218/2021, which came to be dismissed by this Court, vide its order dated 08.04.2021. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in form of SLP (C) No. 13800/2021. The same was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 06.07.2022. The observations made in the said judgment have some relevance to the present petition. The same are reproduced herein under:

"20. In the context of the said legal position, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the first Lease Agreement was executed on 07.08.2011 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,17,000/- of a suit premises. The said Lease Agreement was for a period of 02 years ending in July 2013. By the consent of the parties extended Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2013 was executed for a further period of 11 months for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,50,000/- with approximate increase in rent amount by 30% for the next one year. Admittedly, the notice for eviction was issued terminating the lease due to non-payment of the rent after the expiry of the extended lease period which is due for payment by the Defendant. The suit for eviction was filed on 18.05.2018 for possession (based on Landlord-Tenant relationship), arrears of rent, mesne profit and pendente lite. The said suit was contested by the Defendant in which the ownership was not denied. The execution of first Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2011 and the extended Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2013 was also not denied. The monthly tenancy and payment of rent in terms of Lease Agreement is also not denied by the Defendant. The Defendant has taken a defense that the property belonging to him in Amloh was agreed to be sold to the Plaintiff to which effect ATS-II dated 25.05.2017 was executed. Further the Defendant has contended that, ATS-III dated 30.12.2017 was executed after some adjustments in consideration was made. Hence, the Defenda