IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for detailed pleadings and documentary evidence to support claims of possession and entitlement to relief, as well as the consequences of pursuing infructuous suits.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. - The CM(M) No. 1422/2018, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in civil suit no. 35045/2016, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner herein i.e., the defendant, under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC'). The Petitioner is admittedly, the owner of the suit property and has been arrayed as a defendant in the suit.

1.1. The CM(M) No. 135/2021, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, impugns the subsequent order dated 30.11.2019 arising out of the same suit proceedings, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner herein i.e., the plaintiff, under Section 151 of CPC seeking restoration of possession of shop No. G-50, lower ground floor, Verdhaman Market, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi (`suit property') and grant of injunction in the form of status quo ante. The Petitioner contends that he was a tenant in the suit property and is the plaintiff in the suit. The Respondent has disputed the tenancy and stated that Petitioner was a helper employed by him. The Petitioner admittedly, as on date is out of possession.

1.2. Since these are cross-petitions, for the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their original rank and status before the Trial Court.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of aforesaid petitions are as under:

2.1. A suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff i.e., Mr. Shatrunjay, seeking a restraint against the defendant i.e., Mr. Avinash Gulati, owner of the suit property, from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and denying him entry into the suit property or causing obstruction in any manner whatsoever.

2.2. The plaintiff has filed the said civil suit in November, 2011 asserting that he is a tenant in the suit property since the year 2002; and is running the business of selling gift items in the name and style of `M/s Archies Gift Shop'. It is stated that the plaintiff has been paying rent of Rs.1,200/- per month (in cash) and has also paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as security (in cash) to the defendant towards the tenancy.

2.3. It is stated that the cause of action, inter-alia, arose on 10.11.2011, when the defendant snatched the keys to the suit property, refused to return them and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit property. It also arose on 19.11.2011 when the defendant threw goods of the plaintiff and threatened to implicate the defendant in false cases. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant.

2.4. The defendant filed his written statement on 18.02.2012, stating that he is in exclusive possession of the entire Shop No. G-50 (which comprises of upper ground floor and lower ground floor) and is carrying on the business of sale of gift items under the name and style of `M/s Aakarshan Point'. It is stated that plaintiff was hired as a `servant' in the said shop, as the defendant was not in a position to look after the entire business being run in two portions of Shop No. G-50 i.e., ground floor and lower ground floor. The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and stated that he is in exclusive possession of the Shop No. G-50. It is stated that on 11.02.2012, the defendant learnt that the plaintiff has opened the Shop No. G-50 using unauthorizedly made duplicate keys which led to dispute between the parties. The defendant filed a police complaint dated 12.02.2012 with the concerned police station.

2.5. The Trial Court vide order dated 08.06.2012, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC directed the defendant to remove his lock and hand over the duplicate keys of the shutter to the plaintiff. There is a solitary shutter outside Shop No. G-