J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 14.01.2015 (‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by the Additional District Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS No. 73/2014 titled as ‘Smt. Bimla Chopra & Anr. Vs Sh. Kuldeep.’ Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the Suit of the Appellants (original Plaintiffs), consequently, the Appellants have sought for setting aside and reversal of the Impugned Judgment in the present Appeal and for the consequent relief of decreeing the Suit of Appellants.

2. During the pendency of present Appeal, the unfortunate demise of Appellant No. 1 took place. Appellant No. 2 moved an Application under Order XXII Rule 2 CPC claiming herself to be the sole surviving legal heir of Appellant No. 1 and further claiming that the right to sue still survives in her favour. The said Application was allowed by this Court and the memo of parties in the present Appeal was amended accordingly.

FACTS GERMANE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL

3. The Appellants had filed the Suit bearing No. CS No. 73/2014 seeking recovery of possession of the property bearing No. 1/10042, Steet No. 3J, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032 (‘Suit Property’) admeasuring 42 sq. yards. The Appellants also sought for permanent injunction against the Respondent (original Defendant) and mesne profits @ Rs. 5,000/- per month from 01.12.2012 till the handing over of possession of the Suit Property to the Appellants.

4. It is the case of the Appellants that Appellant No. 1 was the rightful owner of the Suit Property. She was residing at the ground floor of the Suit Property. It is alleged that she used to treat the Respondent as his son and therefore, she gave him permission to occupy one room, kitchen and combined latrine on the first floor and one room with combined bathroom on second floor of the Suit Property (‘said portion’) without paying any user charges.

5. Appellant No. 1 sent a legal notice dated 02.09.2009 to the Respondent due to unruly behavior of Respondent and his wife with her, wherein she demanded possession of the said portion of Suit Property. Since, the possession was not handed over to Appellant No. 1, she filed an eviction petition dated 20.11.2009 against the Respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent since March, 2007. In reply to the said eviction petition, the Respondent claimed himself to be an adopted son of husband of Appellant No. 1, late Sh. Om Prakash Chopra. The Respondent claimed that he was residing in the said portion of the Suit Property as a licensee and not as a tenant. In the eviction proceedings, Appellant No. 1 was not able to prove the landlord- tenant relationship between Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent and thus, the eviction proceedings were dismissed.

6. Pursuant to dismissal of the eviction proceedings, Appellant No.

1 issued another legal notice dated 10.11.2012 whereby she revoked the license of the Respondent for staying in the said portion of Suit Property and demanded vacant and peaceful possession of the same. However, despite receipt of the said legal notice, the Respondent had failed to vacate the said portion of the suit property. In view of the same, Appellant No. 1, through her GPA holder Appellant No. 2, preferred the Suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages and injunction.

7. The Respondent had filed his written statement before the learned Trial Court in which he disputed the title of Appellant No.1 qua the suit property. It is the case of the Respondent that the Suit Property falls in Khasra No. 348 which is a Government land/ custodial land. The Respondent further alleged that he had gained a possessory title in the said portion of the Suit Property since he has been in adverse possession of the same for more than 15 years. Based on these grounds, the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the