IMPORTANT POINT
GPA and similar documents do not confer title to immovable property; legal heirs of the original allottee are entitled to possession.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

Since the issue involved in both these appeals revolves around a similitude of facts, therefore, the captioned appeals are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are extracted from RSA No. 126/14.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2014 passed in RCA No. 21/2009, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned Trial Court, has been affirmed, wherein, the suit instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents for recovery of possession, damages/mesne profits and permanent injunction was decreed.

3. The factual matrix of the case would indicate that the suit for recovery of possession, damages/mesne profits and permanent injunction was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants/defendants qua shop number one at the ground floor of respondents/plaintiffs premises bearing no. C-1251, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (hereinafter referred as “suit property”).

4. Admittedly, the suit property was initially allotted to Shri Satpal by the Delhi Development Authority. The respondents/plaintiffs are legal heirs of Shri Satpal. It was averred that during his lifetime, Shri Satpal had let out the suit property to one Shri Shyam Lal in the year 1990. The said Shri Shyam Lal paid rent upto the year 2003 but afterwards stopped paying the rent. The said tenant had arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rs 93,330/- owing to its non-payment, the electricity connection was also disconnected.

5. Therefore, in order to escape liability, it was contended that Shri Shyam Lal sold the property to Shri Bishamber Dayal vide GPA, Deed of Sale Agreement, Will, Possession Letter, Affidavit and Receipt all dated 28.11.2002. Thereafter, it was contended that the appellants/defendants had eventually purchased the suit property from Shri Bishamber Dayal vide GPA, Deed of Sale Agreement, Will, Possession Letter, Affidavit and Receipt all dated 27.08.2003.

6. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs requested the appellants/defendants to vacate the suit property as after the death of the original allottee, the legal heirs of the original allottee are the rightful owners of the suit property. However, the appellants/defendants refused to vacate the said premises as they claimed that since they had purchased the suit property, therefore, they were the rightful owners of the said property.

7. Pursuant thereto, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession, damages/ mesne profits and permanent injunction and the Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 31.07.2009 decreed the suit. The first appeal at the instance of the appellants/defendants was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved thereto, the appellants/defendants have preferred the instant second appeal.

8. Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants submits that the present appeal deserves to be admitted as the impugned judgment and decree suffer from material perversity. He argued that the decree of eviction could not have been passed against the appellants/defendants as they were already in possession of the suit premises on the basis of (a) Agreement to Sell, (b) Registered Power of Attorney, (c) Registered Will and (d) Possession Letter.

9. He further assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction in the present case due to the express bar provided under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He further submitted that the suit was bad in law for non-joinder of parties as the original tenant was never made a party to the proceedings. On the fulcrum of the aforenoted submissions, learned counsel submits that the instant appeal deserves to be admitted and the impugned judgment and decree ought to be set aside.

10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and perused