J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant to challenge the Judgment dated 14.07.2025 whereby the learned District Judge has allowed the Application, filed by the Plaintiff, under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XV Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) wherein the Civil Suit filed by the Respondent for Possession, Recovery of Damages/Mesne Profits and Occupation Charges besides Interest and Costs was decreed.

2. The case of the Respondent/Plaintiff was that she was the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal No. V-12, Green Park (Main), New Delhi vide registered Sale Deed dated 03.04.2007 (referred to as “Suit Property”). Sh. Gopi Ram Goel (now deceased) was the old tenant in respect of the entire Second Floor of the property in question, inducted by the erstwhile owner, for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.450/- per month excluding all other charges. The Defendants are the members of the same family i.e. Smt. Rampati Devi being the wife, the Defendants No.2 to 6 being the sons and Defendant No.7 Smt. Nirmal Goel, being the daughter-in-law of Defendant No.1, namely Gopi Ram Goel.

3. The Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 10.03.2009 to Gopi Ram Goel asking not only for the arrears of rent due till then, but also terminated his tenancy w.e.f. 31.05.2009 and also called upon him to hand over the peaceful and vacant Possession of the Suit premises. Late Gopi Ram Goel in his Reply dated 12.05.2009, denied all the averments made by the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff asserted that after the termination of tenancy w.e.f. 31.05.2009, Shri Gopi Ram Goel became a statutory tenant, but he continued to have protection from eviction, under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

5. The Plaintiff, thereafter filed an Eviction Petition (Old E. No.389/2009 & New E.No.5961/2016) under Section 14(1)(a), (d) and (h) of the Act, which was dismissed on 25.02.2017, due to non-appearance of the counsel of the petitioner.

6. The Plaintiff then filed an Application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, but the same also got dismissed vide Order dated 03.02.2018. Eventually, the Eviction Petition thus, got dismissed vide Judgment dated 13.03.2018.

7. Sh. Gopi Ram Goel in terms of Order dated 08.08.2011, under Section 15(1) of the Act, deposited the rent in the Court till his death on 26.01.2013. Since December, 2016 the rent was sent by Defendant No.2 to the Plaintiff by Money Order up till 30.10.2018, which was accepted by the Plaintiff without prejudice to her rights and also in terms of Order dated 08.08.2011.

8. The Plaintiff claimed that the protection against eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act, was personal to Sh. Gopi Ram Goel. The present Defendants who are the wife, children and daughter-in-law of deceased Gopi Ram Goel, were never financially dependent upon him. He himself had filed a Partnership Deed dated 13.11.2012 in the Eviction Petition, in which Defendant No.2 was one of the Partners, which reflected that Defendant No.2 was not dependent upon his father.

9. The Defendants, in accordance with explanation to Section 2 of the Act, were entitled to protection for a limited period of one year w.e.f. 27.01.2013. Thereafter, they are in illegal, forcible and unlawful Possession of the Suit premises. The Plaintiffs, therefore, sought the Possession along with Mesne Profits and Interest.

10. The Defendant No.2 Pawan Kumar Goel in the Written Statement claimed that the Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The Plaintiff had filed six earlier Petitions against Sh. Gopi Ram Goel, the

details of which have not been mentioned in the Plaint. She has twisted and manipulated the facts to her advantage. The Defendant being the tenant in the Suit premises, has been regularly paying the Electricity and MTNL Bills and there is nothing outstanding in this regard.

11.