JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J

1. The plaintiff has sued for possession pleading, that Major Ranbir Singh Rana was the sole absolute owner of property no.J-1/161-A, Rajouri Garden, Delhi and acting through his wife and attorney defendant no.1, vide Sale Deeds of the year 2009 has sold the middle and rear portion of the said property admeasuring 910 sq. yds. to the plaintiff; that though possession/constructive possession of the entire property sold was under the Sale Deeds delivered but in fact possession of some portions was not delivered on the plea that the goods of the defendant no.2 who is the daughter-in-law of the defendant no.1 and Major Ranbir Singh Rana were lying therein; that the defendant no.2 instead of removing her goods has not only refused to deliver possession but also collusively inducted defendants no.3 to 8 as her tenants in the said portion. The plaintiff has thus sued for possession and for future mesne profits with interest.

2. The defendant no.1 has supported the plaintiff.

3. The defendant no.2 has contested the suit pleading the property to be belonging to the HUF of Major Ranbir Singh Rana and she and her son, on the demise of her husband, having a right in the said property.

4. The defendants no.3 to 8 inter alia claim the suit for possession to be barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. They however admit having been inducted into the property by the defendant no.2.

5. Following issues were framed on 14.01.2013:

(i). Whether the property belongs to the HUF of Major Ranbir Singh Rana and the defendant no.2 and her son as members of the said HUF, have a right to continue in possession of the same? OPD-2

(ii). Whether the defendant no.2 has any other right, title, claim or interest over the suit property so as to retain possession thereof? OPD-2

(iii). If the aforesaid issues are decided against the defendants, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profit/damages for use and occupation and if so, from whom and at what rate and for what period? OPP

(iv). If the above issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on arrears of mesne profit and if so for what period, from whom and at what rate? OPP

(v). Relief.

6. No issue on the plea of the defendants no.3 to 8 of the suit being barred by Section 50 of the Rent Act was framed for the reason that if the defendant no.2 fails to establish any right in the property, the defendants no.3 to 8 cannot derive any tenancy rights through her.

7. The defendants no.3 to 8 filed this application seeking framing of the following issues:

(i). Whether the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD 3 to 8

(ii). Whether the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendants no.1&2 to illegally evict defendants no.3 to 8 from the tenanted portions in the suit property? OPD 3 to 8.

8. The said application first came up for consideration on 06.03.2013 when it was the contention on behalf of the defendants no.3 to 8 that it being their plea in their written statement that the premises were let out to them by the defendant no.1 as well as the defendant no.2 and that they are paying rent to the defendant no.2 only at the asking of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 being admittedly the attorney of the owner of the property having joined in letting out of the property to the defendants no.3 to 8, the defendants no.3 to 8 would enjoy the protection of the Rent Act even if the defendant no.2 fails in setting up a right to the property.

9. It was on 06.03.2013 enquired from the senior counsel then appearing for the defendants no.3 to 8 whether there was anything whatsoever to show that the defendant no.1 had joined the defendant no.2 in the letting of the property to defendants no.3 to 8. Though the senior counsel for the defendants no.3 to 8 in the course of hearing on 06.03.2013 argued that there is plethora of earlier litigation an