Tenancy claims must be supported by ownership documentation; lack of proof undermines claims of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

[PHYSICAL COURT HEARING]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This is a second appeal preferred against the judgment dated 06.10.2020, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Shahdara District Court, Karkardooma, Delhi (in short `First Appellate Court'). The First Appellate Court via the impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein and thereby confirmed the judgment of the trial court dated 20.02.2018.

2. The backdrop, in which the instant appeal has been filed, is broadly noticed hereafter.

2.1. The respondents before this court are the original plaintiffs. The respondents are husband and wife. The respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession, damages and permanent injunction against the appellant i.e. the original defendant.

2.2. The case set up by the respondents was that they are owners of the suit property which is described as A-181, Gali No.6, opposite MCD office, Bank Colony Road, Mandoli Extension, Delhi-93, located in Khasra No.381, admeasuring 100 sq. yds(in short "suit property").

2.3. It was claimed before the trial court that respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 had purchased a parcel of land admeasuring 50 sq. yds. in 1989 and that respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 had bought the other parcel of land, which also admeasured 50 sq. yds in 1997. It is these two parcels of land which form the suit property. The respondents have also averred that the appellant/defendant used to work on the agriculture land of one, Mr. Ram Bhushan, who is the brother of respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1.

2.4. According to respondents/plaintiffs, the appellant/defendant approached them with the proposal that he would take the suit property on a lease as he desired to shift to Delhi so that he could get into the business of selling milk.

2.5. The respondents/plaintiffs claim that they agreed to the proposal of the appellant/defendant and, thus, inducted him as a tenant in the suit property in the year 2000, which comprised of, one room, that was located in the south-west corner and a verandah.

2.6. The respondents/plaintiffs aver that at that juncture the rent of the suit property was pegged at Rs.1,000/- per month. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the appellant/defendant lived in the suit property along with his family members and also carried on the business of selling milk from the said premises. The respondents/plaintiffs claim that the appellant/defendant for this purpose kept two buffalos. It is stated that the appellant/defendant has been in possession of the suit property since then.

2.7. The respondents/plaintiffs have also averred in paragraph 6 of the plaint that after about two years since the time the appellant/defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property, he made an offer to the respondents/plaintiffs that he would supply 3 litres of milk per day towards rent and as the rate for a litre of milk was Rs.45, the rent would be an amount equivalent to Rs.4,050/- per month.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs further claim that they terminated the appellant's/defendant's tenancy via a notice dated 16.02.2013. The respondents/plaintiffs also aver that they received a response to the said notice from the appellant/defendant. According to them, the response, which was dated 25.02.2013 set up a false claim.

3.1. The appellant/defendant in the reply set up a case that he was the owner of the suit premises.

4. It is in this background that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of possession, damages and permanent injunction qua the appellant/defendant.

5. After pleadings were completed and admission and denial of documents