An appellate court must provide independent findings with reasons to uphold judicial diligence and fairness, especially in assessing ownership claims based on agreements.

JUDGMENT

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant impugning the judgement and order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the First Appellate Court in RCA No. 133/2019 whereby the Appeal of the Appellant herein has been dismissed and the judgement and decree dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 50607/2016 has been upheld and affirmed. Appellant herein was Defendant No. 1 in the Suit and Respondent No. 1 herein was the Plaintiff. Respondents No. 2 to 5 herein were Defendants No. 2 to 5 before the Trial Court. The parties are being referred to by their litigating status before this Court, hereinafter, for the sake of convenience.

2. Respondent No. 1/Shri Ashok Kumar Mazumdar, being the legal heir of the alleged landlord, Late Shri Rohini Kumar Mazumdar, filed a Suit against the Appellant, alleged tenant and Respondents No. 2 to 5, other legal heirs of the alleged landlord, seeking three reliefs viz: (a) decree of possession of the tenanted premises bearing No. A-80, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `premises'); (b) recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.36,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and (c) recovery of mesne profits/damages @ Rs.25,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.02.2015 along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. The case of Respondent No. 1, as set out in the plaint, was that Late Shri R.K. Mazumdar was allotted the land underlying the premises by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, vide registered Lease Agreement dated 24.11.1969. Late Shri Mazumdar constructed a house over the said land in the year 1991 by raising a loan from LIC through DDA against mortgage of the property with DDA. During his lifetime, Shri Mazumdar had inducted the Appellant as a tenant with respect to the entire premises, except for one store room, marked and shown separately in the site plan, initially vide Tenancy Agreement dated 22.11.1992 and later vide Tenancy Agreement dated 31.01.1995 for a period of two years ending on 31.12.1996. Vide the latter Agreement, the agreed rate of rent was Rs.6,000/- per month. However, on account of friendly relationships between Late Shri Mazumdar and Shri B.K. Mitra, husband (now deceased) of the Appellant, it was verbally agreed that out of the said monthly rent, Appellant would deposit Rs.5,457.30/- with DDA to discharge the loan liability and pay the balance to Late Shri Mazumdar. Appellant was paying the rent in accordance with the agreed terms during the lifetime of Late Shri Mazumdar.

4. It was further averred by Respondent No. 1 that after the death of Late Shri Mazumdar on 05.12.1998, Appellant changed her stand and started making claims of being the purchaser of the premises and also stopped paying the rent. On 08.11.2014, when Respondent No. 1 and his wife tried to enter the portion of the premises in their possession and sought arrears of rent, they were denied entry and were threatened with dire consequences by the Appellant. This conduct of the Appellant compelled Respondent No. 1 to send a legal notice dated 22.11.2014 to the Appellant, determining the month-to-month tenancy, which even otherwise had come to an end by efflux of time under the Tenancy Agreement dated 31.01.1995. Failure on the part of the Appellant to vacate the premises led to the fil