$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 19.02.2025 + RC.REV. 362/2019 & CM Appl.27114/2019 DALIP SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shellen Kumar and Mr. Manak Budhiraja, Advs.

versus DURGA PRASAD SHARMA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Aayushi Jain and Mr. Mohit, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. This Court has briefly heard the parties on 31.01.2025 and had given a prima facie finding that the remedy of the Petitioner does not lie before this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 31.01.2025 is reproduced below:

“… 2. It is the plea of the Petitioner that he was in possession of the subject premises in his independent right and not as a tenant.

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the operation of the Impugned Order was stayed by the Court on 30.05.2019, and thereafter, the Petitioner has continued in an uninterrupted possession of the subject premises without paying any user and occupation charges, rental or damages. It is further contended that the Petitioner has no rights in the subject premises and seeks to rely upon paragraph 14 of the Impugned Order to submit that there is a finding of the learned Trial Court that the Petitioner is nothing but a trespasser.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was impleaded as Respondent No.2 before the learned Trial Court by order dated 22.08.2017 and thereafter he has contested the matter.

5. Prima facie, the remedy of the Petitioner does not lie before this Court. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner requests for some time to take instructions….”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

2. Briefly the facts are that an Eviction Petition was filed by Respondent No.1/landlord against Respondent No. 2/tenant before the learned Trial Court.

2.1 During the pendency of the Eviction Petition, the Petitioner filed an Application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] stating that the Petitioner is in the exclusive possession and use of the subject premises in his independent right since 1984. The application filed by the Petitioner was allowed by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 22.08.2017 holding that the presence of the applicant was necessary for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

2.2 The Petitioner thereafter filed his leave to defend Application in the matter. It was contended therein that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1/landlord and that there is collusion between Respondent No.1/landlord and Respondent No.2/tenant. Various other grounds were raised including that the mother of Respondent No.2/tenant is shown to be a trespasser and cannot be treated as a tenant. Respondent No.1/landlord denied all the allegations in the reply to leave to defend Application.

2.3 The Respondent No.2/tenant also filed an Application for leave to defend inter-alia contending that they were predecessors-in-interest of the original tenant, Smt. Amrit Kaur Bedi. It was further contended that the said Smt. Amrit Kaur Bedi was a tenant of one Sh. Inder Sain Verma, however Respondent No.2/tenant or her predecessor-in-interest did not attorn to Respondent No.1/landlord as the letter dated 08.02.2002 sent to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Smt. Amrit Kaur Bedi demanding the rent was unsigned. It was further contended therein that there are other alternate suitable accommodations available with Respondent No.1/landlord.

3. The learned Trial Court examined the Applications for Leave to Defend filed by both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and gave a finding that no triable issue was raised by either the Petitioner or Respondent No.2. Originally, the sale deed executed by the said Sh. Inder Sain Verma showed Smt. Amrit Kaur Bedi as a trespasser, however it also sets out that monthly occupation charges of Rs. 150/- as da