J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal, filed by the Appellants [Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit], assails the correctness of the judgment dated 28.06.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] in CS(OS) 600/2019 whereby the learned Single Judge decreed the suit while allowing the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟]. It was held that the Defendants were unauthorised occupants of the property bearing No. E-12/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „suit property‟] since the demise of late Shri Manohar on 06.04.2017, and directed delivery of possession to the Plaintiffs. The learned Single Judge further directed the Defendants to render accounts and pay mesne profits from the date of demise of late Shri Manohar till the date of recovery of possession.

2. The following substantial questions arise for consideration in the present Appeal:

i. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendants had seriously contested the Plaintiff‟s claim in their pleadings.

ii. Whether, in a highly contested matter, it is permissible to record findings of fact and grant relief without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate their respective contentions at the stage of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

4. The Plaintiffs, Smt. Hem Manohar and her daughter, Smt. Vivita Tayal, instituted CS(OS) 600/2019 seeking eviction of the Defendants, rendition of accounts, payment of mesne profits, damages for loss of rent, and injunction in respect of the suit property against the Defendants. Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1, Smt. Rachna Gupta, are real sisters. Defendant No.1 is married to Shri Rajendra Gupta, whereas Smt. Hem Manohar was married to late Shri Manohar. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3, the present Appellants, are members of the family business concern M/s. Sangeeta Leasings, which was in possession and management of the suit property pursuant to various agreements executed by the parties over several decades.

5. The suit property was initially allotted on a leasehold basis in 1969 jointly in the names of Plaintiff No.1 and her husband, late Shri Manohar. The Defendants assert that, upon the Plaintiffs‟ relocation to Australia, late Shri Manohar executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney [hereinafter referred to as „GPA‟] dated 17.01.1979 in favour of Shri Rajendra Gupta, authorising him to manage, administer, maintain, and deal with the suit property, including the collection of rents and handling of tenants. According to the Defendants, the said GPA remained operative and was never revoked until the demise of Shri Manohar on 06.04.2017.

6. In the written statement filed by Defendant No.1, the following chronology and assertions were highlighted:

“9. That early in the year 1984, Mr. Shri Manohar came to India as his daughter, Vivita Tayal, i.e., Plaintiff No.2 herein, was due to get married in India on 15.01.1984. On 08.01.1984, Mr. Shri Manohar and Mr. Rajendra Gupta along with Ms. Rachna Gupta, i.e., Defendant No.1 herein, had a joint meeting at the latter's residence at R-235, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi 110 048. The marriage of Plaintiff No.2 was arranged and organized jointly by both the families with full co-operation and support by all family members. During his visit to Mr. Rajendra Gupta on 08.01.1984, Mr. Shri Manohar expressed his desire to conclude his affairs in India as he had acquired or was on the verge of acquiring citizenship in Australia. In pursuance to the earlier arrangement between the parties, Mr. Shri Manohar offered to transfer, sell and convey all rights and interests in the su