RSA 76/2026 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 21

st

May, 2026

Pronounced on: 29

th

May, 2026

+ RSA No. 76/2026, CM APPL. 25060/2026 (stay), CM APPL.

25062/2026 (delay)

1. SHRI OM PRAKASH HASIJA

Son of Late Shri Jaswant Lal @ Jaswant Singh

Shop No. 886/3, Ward No. 8

Main Bazar, Mehrauli,

New Delhi. ...Appellant No.1

2. SHRI NARINDER KUMAR HASIJA

Son of Late Shri Jaswant Lal @ Jaswant Singh

Shop No. 886/2, Ward No. 8

Main Bazar, Mehrauli

New Delhi. ....Appellant No.2

3. SHRI BHARAT LAL HASIJA

Son of Late Shri Jaswant Lal @ Jaswant Singh

Shop No. 886/3, Ward No. 8

Main Bazar, Mehrauli

New Delhi. ....Appellant No.3

Through: Dr. R.K. Sharma, Mr. Rakesh

Joshi, Ms. Sakshi Mehra,

Advocates.

versus

1. SHRI KISHAN CHAND

Son of Shri Munshi Ram

r/o 903/8, Main Bazar,

Mehrauli, New Delhi.

2. SMT. ANNAPOORNA DEVI

3. SHRI BENI PERSHAD

4. SHRI BADRI PERSHAD

RSA 76/2026 Page 2 of 16

5. SHRI MAHABIR PERSHAD

6. SHRI KIRTI PERSHAD

r/o 838, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006. ....Respondents

Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

25062/2026 (delay)

1. The present Application has been filed by the Appellant seeking

condonation of delay of 171 days in re-filing the present Appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the Application the same is allowed. The

delay of 171 days in re-filing the present Appeal is condoned.

3. The present Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

RSA No. 76/2026

4. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been filed on behalf

of the Plaintiffs/Appellants, Mr. Om Prakash Hasija, Mr. Narinder Kumar

Hasija and Mr. Bharat Lal Hasija against the Judgment and Decree dated

22.07.2025 whereby the learned ASCJ-cum-JSCC-cum-GJ has upheld the

Judgment and Decree dated 15.07.2015, wherein, the Suit for Declaration

and Permanent Injunction filed by the Plaintiffs has been dismissed, by

the learned Civil Judge.

5. The Plaintiffs had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 227/2013 against

the Defendants for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

RSA 76/2026 Page 3 of 16

6. The brief facts as narrated in the Plaint are, that in the year 1962 Mr.

Jaswant Lal (father of the Plaintiffs) was inducted as a tenant by Mr. Lala

Ram Pershad Rais in Shops No. 2 and 3, situated in Property No. 886, Ward

No. 8, Main Bazar, Mehrauli, New Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.8.81 and

Rs.4.50 respectively. The rent receipts for the said shops, were being issued

regularly in favour of Mr. Jaswant Lal. Subsequently, in the year 1971, Mr.

Lala Ram Pershad Rais passed away and thereafter, the rent was being

received by his legal heirs, Smt. Annapoorna Devi, Mr. Beni Pershad, Mr.

Badri Pershad, Mr. Mahabir Pershad and Mr. Kirti Pershad (Defendant

Nos. 2 to 6) jointly and they continued to receive the rent, till the year 1988.

7. However, Defendant No. 1, Mr. Kishan Chand, fraudulently

represented to Mr. Jaswant Lal that he had purchased the said shops from its

erstwhile owners, namely, Smt. Annapoorna Devi, Mr. Beni Pershad, Mr.

Badri Pershad, Mr. Mahabir Pershad and Mr. Kirti Pershad. It is claimed

by the Plaintiffs that, Mr. Jaswant Lal without verifying the title documents

of Defendant No. 1, in ignorance, admitted him to be the landlord of the

tenanted shops.

8. Defendant No. 1, thereafter, filed an Eviction Petition under Sections

14 (1) (a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred

to as “DRC Act”) against Mr. Jaswant Lal. Defendant No. 1 also filed

another Eviction Petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act, wherein,

an eviction Order had already been passed by the learned Additional Rent

Controller.

9. Subsequently, during the pendency of the aforesaid Eviction Petitions,

Mr. Jaswant Lal passed away and after his death, the tenancy for the two

RSA 76/2026 Page 4 of 16

shops stood devolved upon the Plaintiffs, being his sons and were

substituted in the Eviction Petitions filed by Defendant No. 1.

10. Defendant No. 1, thereafter, filed an Application under Sections 152,

153 read with Section 151 of the CPC in the Eviction Petition under Section

14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, wherein, it was claimed that the Petition has been

wrongly filed in respect of Shop No. 886/1, Ward No. 8, Main Bazar,

Mehrauli, New Delhi, whereas the Plaintiffs had been inducted as a tenant in

the Shop No. 886/3, Ward No. 8, Main Bazar, Mehrauli, New Delhi.

11. The aforesaid Application was contested by the Plaintiffs and a Reply

to the said Application, was filed on 06.08.2012.

12. It was claimed by the Plaintiffs that, thereafter, they started preparing

for the cross-examination of witnesses before the learned ARC, which was

fixed for 16.08.2012. The Plaintiffs met their counsel on 11.08.2012 and

during the course of preparation, it was revealed that Defendant No. 1 was

not the owner of the Suit Property. It was further claimed by the Plaintiffs

that Defendant No. 1 had not filed any documents in respect of his

ownership in the Suit Property. It is due to the false and mala fide

representation made by Defendant No.1, that the Plaintiffs had wrongly

admitted him to be the owner/landlord of the Suit Property and thereafter,

started paying rent to him.

13. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed an Application under Order 6 Rule

17 of the CPC, in the Eviction Petition filed by Defendant No. 1 to

incorporate the correct facts in their Written Statements/Reply etc. and to

show that Defendant No. 1 was neither the owner nor the landlord of the

Suit Property.

RSA 76/2026 Page 5 of 16

14. On account of the said fraud committed by Defendant No.1, the

Plaintiffs filed the present Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction

against the Defendants.

15. The Suit was contested by the Defendant No. 1, Mr. Kishan Chand,

who in his Written Statement, took the preliminary objections that the

present Suit is nothing but a blatant abuse of the process of law, which had

been filed with the sole motive to frustrate the Eviction Petitions filed by

Defendant No. 1. It was further asserted by Defendant No.1 that the Suit is

barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel.

16. It was claimed by Defendant No. 1 that, Mr. Jaswant Lal from the

period of 1988 till his death on 24.06.2010, had been regularly paying rent

of the two shops to Defendant No. 1. After his demise, the Plaintiffs

continued to pay rent to Defendant No. 1. The rent receipts issued by

Defendant No. 1 in favour of Mr. Jaswant Lal, were annexed along with the

Written Statement.

17. It was further claimed that the present Suit had been filed in

connivance with the Defendant Nos. 2 to 6, who had sold the Suit Property

to the wife of Defendant No. 1 in the year 1988. The same was duly

informed to Mr. Jaswant Lal by the erstwhile owners, whereafter, he started

paying the rent of the two shops to Defendant No. 1, who collected the same

on behalf of his wife.

18. On 23.10.2002, wife of Defendant No 1, executed a Power of

Attorney in favour of the Defendant No. 1 for control, management and

supervision of the Suit Property, as well as for receiving rent from the

Plaintiffs. It was claimed that the Plaintiffs cannot challenge the title of

RSA 76/2026 Page 6 of 16

Defendant No. 1 as the owner/landlord of the Suit Property, as per under

Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

19. It was further asserted that the original documents of the Suit Property

had been filed by Defendant No. 1 in Eviction Petition No. 469/2009 against

Mr. Jaswant Lal. The photocopies of the said documents were also supplied

to him, whereafter, no challenge to the title of the Defendant No. 1, was

raised by the Plaintiffs, in either their Leave to Defend Application or in the

Written Statement filed in aforesaid Eviction Petition. It was, therefore,

submitted that the Suit of the Plaintiffs, does not disclose any cause of

action.

20. It was further asserted that the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs, is barred by

limitation. Mr. Jaswant Lal since 1988 had acknowledged Defendant No. 1

to be the owner/landlord of the Suit Property and had been regularly paying

rent to him, till the year 2012.

21. On merits, the same defence was reiterated and it was prayed that the

present Suit filed by the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.

22. The learned Civil Judge framed the following issues, on 17.02.2014:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration to the

effect that plaintiff are still the tenants of Smt. Annapurna

Devi, Sh. Benni Pershad, Sh. Badri Pershad, Sh. Mahabir

Pershad and Sh. Kirti Pershad (defendants No.2 to 6)

jointly @ Rs.8.81 paisa with respect to shop No.886/2 and

@ Rs.4.50 paisa with respect to shop No.886/3 as prayed

for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent

injunction for restraining defendant No. l from representing

himself to be the owner/landlord of the above mentioned

shops? OPP.

3. Whether defendants No.2 to 6 sold the suit property to the

wife of defendant No. l in 1988 and whether wife of

defendant No. l executed to GPA etc. in favour of defendant

No. l on 23.10.2002 regarding the suit property? OPD.

RSA 76/2026 Page 7 of 16

4. Whether the present suit is barred by principle of waiver

and estoppels? OPD.

5. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

6. Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of

action? OPD.

7. Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed for

payment of insufficient court fees? OPD.

8. Relief.

23. Plaintiff No. 1, Mr. Om Prakash Hasija, examined himself as PW-1

who submitted his evidence by way of the Affidavit, wherein he reiterated

his case as stated in the Plaint. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the

Defendants. The Plaintiffs further examined Mr. M.K.Verma as PW-2 as

well as Mr. Deepak Sharma as PW-3.

24. Defendant No. 1, Mr. Kishan Chand examined himself as DW-1.

25. He also examined DW-2, Mr. Tejender, UDC, Sub-Registrar,

Mehrauli, New Delhi, who proved the GPA dated 23.10.2002, Ex.DW-

2/1executed by Smt. Ram Wati, wife of the Defendant in favour of

Defendant No. 1.

26. The learned Civil Judge on appreciation of evidence, observed that

admittedly, the Plaintiffs have been paying rent to Defendant No. 1 since

1988 and had continued to pay rent till filing of the present Suit in the year

2012, i.e. for a period of 24-25 years, after having accepted him as the

landlord of the Suit Property and had never raised any objection qua his

title. The Plaintiffs have further not disputed the rent receipts (Ex.DW-1/4-

7) issued by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Mr. Jaswant Lal. The Plaintiffs

have admittedly not paid rent to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 6, since 1988 nor

had they claimed any rent from the Plaintiffs till date.

27. The assertion of the Defendant No. 1 that in the year 1988, his wife

had purchased the Suit Property from the Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and thereby

RSA 76/2026 Page 8 of 16

become the owner, has also not been challenged by the Plaintiffs. Merely

because Defendant No. 1 was not able to prove himself to be the owner of

the Suit Property, does not mean that he loses the status of being the

landlord. The landlord can be the owner of the Property or any person

authorised to let out the Property, which is the situation in the present case.

28. The question of ownership is not relevant and the relationship of the

landlord-tenant, stands established for a period of 25 years. It was also held

that the Suit of the Plaintiffs was also barred by limitation.

Consequently, the Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction filed

by the Plaintiffs was dismissed.

29. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs preferred a Regular Civil Appeal bearing

No. RCA SCJ 2/2019 against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.07.2015,

passed by the learned Civil Judge.

30. The learned ASCJ in his Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.2025

found no merit in the Appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs, and upheld the

observations made by the learned Civil Judge. The Cross-Objections filed by

Defendant No. 1, were also dismissed as being without any merit.

31. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.2025

the Plaintiffs have preferred the present Second Regular Appeal, under

Section 100 CPC.

32. The Grounds of Challenge are that the two Courts grossly erred by

not appreciating the settled legal aspect that if by operation of law, the

owner/landlord ceases to be the owner of the tenanted premises, then he

shall also not be the landlord. Once the Courts held that the ownership of

Defendant No. 1 was not established, he could not have been declared as the

landlord of the Suit Property.

RSA 76/2026 Page 9 of 16

33. It was further contended by the Plaintiffs that both the Courts have

rightly concluded that neither Defendant No 1 nor his wife, Smt. Ramwati,

were the owners of the Suit Property and thus, the rule of estoppel could not

have been invoked, which is applicable only when the Property has been let

out by a person, who may or may not be the owner of the Property.

34. In the present case, it is admitted that in the year 1962, Mr. Lala Ram

Prashad Rais had let out the two shops to Mr. Jaswant Lal and rent for the

said two shops was being paid to him. It was in the year 1988 that Defendant

No. 1 claimed that he had purchased the Suit Property from Defendant Nos.

2 to 6. However, he had failed to produce any document qua his ownership.

Consequently, the principle of estoppel was not applicable to the case of the

Plaintiffs.

35. Likewise, the principle of res judicata will also not applicable since it

pre-supposes the decision given by a Court competent to decide it. The

decision of Rent Controller does not operate as res judicata, since the Rent

controller had no exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on the relationship of

landlord and tenant, for which, reliance is placed on Kanta Devi vs. Surinder

Kumar, AIR 1978 Delhi 318.

36. It was further asserted that from the averments made by Defendant

No. 1, the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, are proved.

Defendant No. 1 in his Written Statement, had categorically alleged that the

Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 informed Mr. Jaswant Lal, regarding the sale of the

Suit Property to Smt. Ramwati (wife of Defendant No.1), which implies that

the Defendant No. 2 to 6 were aware of the said sale.

37. However, during the pendency of the present Suit, Defendant No. 1

had filed an Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment

RSA 76/2026 Page 10 of 16

of Smt. Ramwati. However, the learned Courts vide Order dated 31.10.2013

while dismissing the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC,

observed that on the basis of the documents produced, no right whatsoever

was conferred upon Smt. Ramwati. While adjudicating Issue No. 3, the

learned Court had rightly held that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 did not sell

the Property to Smt. Ramwati, from whom the title was being claimed by

her husband, Defendant No. 1.

38. It was further asserted that once Defendant No. 1 has not been able to

prove his ownership, he could not have been held to be the landlord of the

Suit Property. Defendant No. 1 was required to prove himself to be either an

owner or an Authorised Representative, to act on behalf of the owner of the

Suit Property. However, no such documents have been produced by

Defendant No. 1 which exhibits that his wife had authorised him on her

behalf to collect rent from the Plaintiffs. The authenticity of General Power

of Attorney dated 23.10.2002 (Ex.DW-2/1) had not been proved.

39. The learned Trial Court further grossly erred in observing that the Suit

filed by the Plaintiffs, was blatantly barred by limitation. It has not been

appreciated that the act of fraud, can be challenged at any time in any

Appeal, Revision or Writ or collateral proceedings. The fraudulent act by

Defendant No. 1, was discovered while preparing for cross-examination of

witnesses on 11.08.2012, after which the Plaintiffs had filed the present Suit

on 01.10.2012, which is within the period of limitation.

40. The observations of the learned Courts that the Plaintiffs had been

paying rent for 25 years before the learned Additional Rent Controller

disentitles him to any relief, is erroneous as the rent was being paid to

Defendant No. 1, on account of fraud and misrepresentation.

RSA 76/2026 Page 11 of 16

41. It has been erroneously observed that there was no cause of action to

file the Suit. The Defendant No. 1 or his wife, were never the owners of the

Suit Property, and their acts were vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation.

42. It was further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has not re-

appreciated the evidence nor the Appeal has been dismissed by a reasoned

Order. It was claimed that the evidence of the specific witnesses, has not

been independently appreciated by the learned Appellate Court. The

decision of the Appellate Court, are therefore, arbitrary.

43. The mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, has not been followed

while deciding the Appeal, which is a serious legal infirmity and the

impugned Judgment is liable to be set-aside.

44. Reliance is placed on Nihal Chand Agarwal & Ors. vs. Gopal Sahai

Bhatia & Ors., MANU/DE/0542/1986. Reliance is also placed on Santosh

Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (dead) by LRs. and Gannmani Anasuya &

Others vs. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Others, AIR 2007 SC 2380.

45. It is further contended that Section 103 of the CPC, enables the High

Court, to consider the evidence, when it has been wrongly determined by the

Courts below, on which a substantial question of law arises, as referred to in

Section 100 of the CPC. When the appreciation of evidence suffers from

material irregularities and when there is perversity in the findings of the

Courts below, the High Court is empowered to interfere on the question of

facts as well.

46. Reliance is placed on Ramathal vs. Maruthathal & Others, AIR 2018

SC 340; Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., (2000) I SC

679. Thus, this Court in a Second Appeal, can re-appreciate the questions of

RSA 76/2026 Page 12 of 16

fact when the findings are perverse as held in the Case of Union of India vs.

Ibrahim Uddin & Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148.

47. The impugned Orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as they

have been passed contrary to the law an facts and is otherwise, illegal. It is,

therefore, prayed that the impugned Judgment of the learned Civil Judge, as

well as, of the learned District Judge, be set-aside.

Submissions heard and the record perused.

48. The basic facts which emerges from the case of the Plaintiffs, is that

they have admitted their status in the Suit Property, as a tenant earlier under

Mr. Lala Ram Pershad Rais and consequent upon his demise, under his legal

heirs i.e. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6. It is also not disputed that Defendant No. 1

approached Mr. Jaswant Lal in the year 1988 informing the sale of the Suit

Property and that he has stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and is

thereby entitled to collect rent. They have also admitted that they have been

paying the rent to Defendant No. 1 sine 1988 till about 2012 and they had

admitted him as their landlord.

49. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that in the year 2012, while preparing for

their evidence in the Eviction Petition filed by Defendant No. 1 under the

Delhi Rent Control Act, they became aware that he had no documents of

title or ownership in favour of Defendant No.1 and that he had made a

fraudulent misrepresentation, which was accepted by them in earnestness,

which led them into admitting Defendant No. 1 as the landlord, and

thereafter, they started paying rent to him, which they continued to pay till

2012 after which, the present Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction

had been filed by them.

RSA 76/2026 Page 13 of 16

50. The learned Civil Judge, as well as, the learned District Judge

observed the long conduct of the Plaintiffs in accepting Defendant No. 1 as a

landlord and paying rent to him shows that the relationship of landlord-

tenant, stood admitted. The status of Defendant No. 1 could not have been

challenged by the Plaintiffs, after a period of 25 years.

51. The main ground on which, the Appellants had sought to justify their

conduct, was by alleging fraud and misrepresentation, which according to

them, came to light on 11.08.2012, while preparing for evidence in the

Eviction Petition. It was held by the learned Civil Judge, as well as, by the

learned District Judge in Appeal, that no fraud or misrepresentation could be

proved by the Plaintiffs and therefore, by their conduct, they accepted the

Defendant No. 1 as the landlord. The Plaintiffs having admitted the status in

the Suit Property as a tenant and having acquiescenced into Defendant No. 1

being the landlord, they were estopped under Section 116 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 to question the title of the Defendant No. 1. It was thus,

concluded that, in the light of their being a relationship of landlord and the

tenant, the Plaintiffs were not entitled to seek a Declaration against

Defendant No. 1.Connected to this aspect of Defendant No. 1 being the

landlord, his ownership had also been questioned by the Plaintiffs.

52. Defendant No. 1 had placed on record the Agreement to Sell

(Ex.DW-1/11). Significantly, Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were a party to the

present Suit, however, they failed to contest the present Suit or challenge the

assertions made by Defendant No. 1. Not only this, an Application had also

been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on behalf of Smt. Ramwati, wife of

Defendant No. 1, wherein all the documents on the basis of which, she had

RSA 76/2026 Page 14 of 16

acquired the ownership of the Suit Property, were placed on record which

unfortunately, had been erroneously rejected by the learned Civil Judge.

53. Be as it may, the documents of sale i.e. the Agreement to Sell etc.,

had come on record to show that Smt. Ramwati had purchased the Suit

Property from Defendant Nos. 2 to 6, a fact which had not been contested by

them, though they are party to the Suit.

54. These documents were, therefore, sufficient to show that Smt.

Ramwati had stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owners. While these

documents may not confer absolute ownership as has been held in the case

of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Tr. Dir vs State of Haryana & Anr.,

AIR 2012 SC 206, however, they are sufficient to show that Smt. Ramwati

had stepped into the shoes of erstwhile owner and became entitled to claim

rent from the Plaintiffs qua the Suit Property. She became a landlord vis-a-

vis the Plaintiffs, as has been clearly established from the evidence on

record.

55. Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 during evidence had proved the GPA

dated 23.10.2002 (Ex.DW-1/1) that had been executed by Smt. Ramwati in

his favour, to manage the Suit Property and collect rent from the Plaintiffs.

The documents and the evidence as placed on record, clearly reflected that

Defendant No. 1 had become the landlord and was entitled to claim rent

from the Plaintiffs.

56. Therefore, while Defendant No. 1 was not able to prove his absolute

ownership qua the Suit Property, however, the documents, as well as, the

evidence and the admission of the parties, clearly proved the relationship of

the landlord and tenant between the parties. There is no infirmity or

illegality in this regard.

RSA 76/2026 Page 15 of 16

57. Another plea that had been taken by the Plaintiffs, was that the

learned Trial Court had erroneously observed the Suit of the Plaintiffs, to be

barred by limitation. It was asserted that, the fact that Defendant No. 1 had

no documents of ownership in his favour, and the challenge arose for the

first time in the year 2012, when the plaintiff/Appellant became aware of the

fraud. Consequently, the present Suit for Declaration and Permanent

Injunction was filed in the year 2012.

58. Insofar as, the declaration of the Plaintiffs being a tenant in the Suit

Property was concerned, it was an admitted fact and there was no

declaration warranted in this regard.

59. In regard to the Declaration in respect of Defendant No. 1 not being a

landlord, is concerned, the Plaintiffs had the right to seek such clarification

about his status in 1988 when he first asserted his rights in the Suit

Property,. However, the same were never questioned or challenged by the

Plaintiffs.

60. Furthermore, it was claimed by the Plaintiffs that it was in 2012 that

they came to know that Defendant No. 1 was not the owner of the Suit

Property and that he had no documents in this regard. It is pertinent to note

that, no explanation has been given by the Plaintiffs as to how did they

acquire the aforesaid knowledge.

61. It has been vaguely stated that while preparing for the evidence for the

Eviction Petition, the Plaintiffs realised that the Defendant No. 1 had no

ownership papers; such a plea without there being any specific explanation,

cannot be accepted. No facts or evidence whatsoever, about the alleged

fraud has been given. Mere assertion of fraud without any explanation, is not

sufficient to consider the plea of fraud.

RSA 76/2026 Page 16 of 16

62. It may also be observed that the question of ownership of the

Appellant in the Suit Property, cannot be challenged by the Plaintiffs for

whom, the only pertinent question is whether there exist the relationship of

landlord-tenant, which has been held through appreciation of evidence to

have been established between the parties.

63. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substantial question of

law, which has been raised and there is no merit in the present Appeal,

which is hereby dismissed. Pending Application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

May 29, 2026/RS