JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.06.2025 passed in RCA DJ No. 22/2021, whereby the learned District Judge upheld the Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2021 passed by the learned JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, decreeing the Suit for Possession in respect of Quarter No. 90, Scindia Potteries Labour Quarter Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Suit bearing No.6877/16 for Possession in respect of Quarter No.90, Scindia Potteries, Labour Quarter Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as Suit property).

3. The facts in brief are that the Plaintiff Company claimed itself to be the owner of a huge property at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, by virtue of a Perpetual Lease Deed dated 18.01.1921. The original Lease Deed dated 18.01.1921 was obtained by Development Corporation of India Ltd. As per the terms of the Perpetual Lease Deed, the said Development Corporation of India Ltd. had alienated the property in favour of the predecessor of the Plaintiff Company, by virtue of an Indenture in 1923.

4. The Plaintiff Company, which was running its pottery factory in a portion of the said property, had employed a number of persons, to work in the factory and had built a large number of quarters adjoining Africa Avenue, which were allotted to its workers for their residence during the period of their service/employment, with the Plaintiff Company.

5. In the year 1969-70, the factory was virtually closed and a substantial number of workers were retrenched/removed. The Defendant/Appellant Bhullan Singh was an employee of the Plaintiff Company, who was retrenched from service in the year 1970. He thereafter, was employed in the Postal Department, Government of India. During the course of his employment, he was allotted Quarter No. 91, as an employee.

6. A Suit bearing No. 339/1973, was filed for possession of Quarter No. 91, which was decreed on 25.01.1974. Inadvertently, the Execution Petition could not be filed within the statutory period of 12 years and consequently became barred by limitation, in the year 1986.

7. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant, emboldened by the aforesaid facts, sometime in the year 1990 or thereabout, unauthorizedly and illegally occupied Quarter No. 90 (adjacent to Quarter No. 91) in the Scindia Potteries Labour Quarter Complex, though neither he had nor has, any right, title or interest in the said Quarter. It is alleged that since then, he and his family have been residing in Quarter No. 90 unauthorizedly and are in illegal and unlawful possession thereof.

8. The Plaintiff asked the Defendant and his family members, to vacate the Suit property time and again, but they failed to pay any heed to the demands of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, therefore, filed a Suit for Possession in respect of the Suit property, against the Defendant.

9. The Suit was contested by the Defendant, who in his Written Statement, took a preliminary objection that he had been in possession of the Suit property since 1976 and had made constructions and renovations therein at his own cost. The Suit has become barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the Suit had been filed after more than 12 years of continuous, uninterrupted and undisputed possession of the Defendant.

10. It was further contended that in a Suit for Possession against a trespasser, all the persons residing in the Suit property are essential and necessary parties. Since they had not been impleaded in the present Suit, the Suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of essential and necessary parties.

11. It was further claimed that the market value of the Suit property was more than Rs. 50 lakhs and that the Suit property had been undervalued. Consequently, the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.

12. It was also contended that the Plaintiff was never the owner of the Suit