A tenant cannot challenge the ownership of the landlord while concurrently asserting adverse possession; such defenses are mutually exclusive under established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. In the present appeal, the Appellant/Defendant/Tenant (hereinafter "Defendant") assails the judgment dated 31st August, 2019 passed in RCA NO. 82/2018 titled Sh. Rahul Arora v. Sh. Ashok Chadha passed by the ld. ADJ-01, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter "Appellate Court") by which the Appellate Court upheld the decree/ judgment dated 12th April 2018 in C.S. No. 9270/2016 titled Sh. Ashok Chadha v. Sh. Rahul Arora passed by the ld. JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (Shahdra) Karkardooma Courts Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court").

3. The Trial Court had directed eviction of the Defendant from the shop bearing no. 7/73, Bhim Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 measuring 60 sq. yards (hereinafter "suit property"). In the suit, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court vide order dated 18th December 2015:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession of suit property bearing no. 7/73, Bhim Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of arrear of rent as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for damages/mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit property as prayed for? OPP

4. Relief"

4. The Trial Court had, vide its judgment dated 12th April, 2018, qua issue no.1 held that the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") had established his title to the suit property. The Trial Court held that the Defendant was the tenant of one Smt. Maya Devi who had transferred the suit property to one Sh. Anil Bansal vide various registered documents including the registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Anil Bansal on 1st November 1999, Will and Agreement to Sell. The said Sh. Anil Bansal had then sold the property to Sh. Ashok Chadha again on 10th March, 2000 by means of a registered GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell and receipt. These two chains of documents were recognised by the Trial Court and it found no merit in Defendant's argument that the ownership document filed by the Plaintiff were false and fabricated. The Trial Court held the fact that the Plaintiff had purchased the suit property and is able to trace back the title to Smt. Maya Devi is not in dispute. As per the case of Defendant, the tenant in the suit property was the father of the present Defendant.

5. The Defendant raised a submission that there was no attornment by his late father in favour of the Plaintiff herein. In respect of this submission, the Trial Court held that in view of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter "Act") the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be disputed by the Defendant. Another issue agitated by the Defendant before the Trial Court was that the suit was filed outside of the limitation period provided under article 65 to Schedule 1 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 as the Plaintiff allegedly got the ownership of the suit property in 1999 but the suit was filed only in 2015. On this issue the Trial Court held that the Defendant had come into the property as a tenant only in 2012 and one Sh. Manish Sharma, had been the tenant on the suit property prior to him. This was disputed by the Defendant. However, the Trial Court in its judgment observes that in the cross-examination of PW-1 the suggestion was put by the Defendant about PW2-Sh. Manish Sharma despite there being no reference to him in the evidence by way of affidavit. On this basis, knowledge of the connection of Sh. Manish