M/S Rajendras Properties (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. Ashok Bansal & Ors

J U D G M E N T : (ORAL) peal has been filed challenging the dec 013 and order dated 13th May 2013 pass C.S. (O.S.) No. 2576/2010, whereby th sed I.A. 8796/2011, application under O ocedure, 1908 ("CPC") filed on behalf ssed an ejectment decree as well as put th W DELHI ..... Appellants a with Mr.Rajesh Mr. Divye Puri, ..... Respondents Mr.Chetan 8th August, 2023 cree of ejectment ed by the learned he learned Single Order VII Rule 11 of appellant no.1 he suit on trial for

¶2Brief facts o Ved Prakash Agg the property in que M-116A, Connau owner/landlord ha 1980 and 25th Au appellant no.1. The 600/- and Rs. 250/ no.1 to induct furt the aforesaid lease

¶3Accordingly property after con those sub-tenants tenants/occupiers.

¶4Subsequentl informed by the Sons (HUF) that created in favour o dated 23rd May, 2 execute fresh lease appellants, the sai not accept respond

¶5Afterwards, in which responde the original owne Respondents No.1 of the case as per the pleadings on record arwal & Sons (HUF) was the original l estion bearing no. M-116, Connaught Pla ught Place, New Delhi – 110001. T ad executed two different lease deeds d ugust, 1981 with respect to the prope e rent mentioned in the two respective lea /- per month. The said lease deeds gave ther sub-tenants, apart from other rights e deeds. y, appellant no.1 inducted various su nverting the same into 18 units/spaces. F gave possession of their respective spa ly, vide letter dated 31st March, 2001 ap original owner/landlord, M/s Ved Prak the rights with respect to the property of respondents No.1 to 5 herein. Appella 2001 asking for details of the transfer d e deed, if there were valid documents. A id details were never furnished. Thus, a dents No.1 to 5 to be the actual transferee appellant no.1 filed various suits to dep nts No. 1 to 5 herein were also made part er/landlord, M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal to 5 herein were allowed to withdraw th d are that one M/s landlord/owner of ace also known as The said original ated 27th August, erty in favour of ase deeds was Rs. right to appellant s as mentioned in ub-tenants in the Further, a few of aces to other sub-ppellant no.1 was kash Aggarwal & in question stand ant no.1 sent reply documents and to As per the case of appellant no.1 did or his landlord. posit rent in court, ties, in addition to l & Sons (HUF). he rent in the said suits filed on behal

¶6Subsequentl

(OS) No. 2576/20 Court. In the said appellant no.1 wa rent qua the said p per month (in view it was averred that possession.

¶7Appellant n said suit under Or basis that there wa much as the suit f document of title o May, 2013, the lea VII Rule 11 CPC learned Single Jud No.1 to 5. The pre by the said order May, 2013 passed

¶8On behalf of legal right to deny the fact that appel said respondents/p Learned counsel fo Subhash Chandra lf of appellant no.1 herein. ly, a suit for possession and recovery of m 10 was filed by respondents No.1 to 5 h suit, respondents No.1 to 5 raised a plea as terminated vide notice dated 24th Aug property in question fetched a rate highe w of arrangement of sub-tenants with the t respondents No.1 to 5 herein were entitl no.1 filed an application, being I.A. No. rder VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection as no cause of action in favour of respond for possession was filed by them withou or transfer document of any nature. Vide arned Single Judge dismissed the applica C. Thereafter, vide a further order dated dge passed the decree of ejectment in favo esent appeal has been filed by appellants dated 13th May, 2013 and decree of eje by the learned Single Judge. f appellants, it is contended that appellan y the title of respondents No. 1 to 5 / pla llants were not put in possession of the plaintiffs and no title document is existin or appellants relies upon decision of the S a vs Mohd Sharit & Others, AIR 1990 S mesne profits, CS herein before this a that the lease of gust, 2006. Since er than Rs. 3500/- actual occupiers), led for a decree of 8796/2011 in the n of plaint on the dents herein, in as ut there being any e order dated 13th ation under Order d 23rd May, 2013, our of respondents s being aggrieved ctment dated 23rd nts are within their aintiffs, in view of suit properties by ng in their favour. Supreme Court in SC 636 wherein it has been held that let into possession

¶9He further s respondents and an prejudice to the rig decision of the C Consultant Ltd., A is estopped from d but he is not prec who claims title on the tenant erroneo proved that accord of such third party

¶10It is the ca transfer of title respondents No.1 such title documen 109 of the Transfe derivative title wi learned Single Jud Property Act can cannot be automati deed. In support o upon the judgment vs Kutub Ali Taya that transfer in the the doctrine of estoppel applies where th by the plaintiff. submits that appellants never accepted th ny deposit of rent before the Rent Contr ghts and contentions of appellants. He als Calcutta High Court in Sambhunath Mi AIR 2005 Cal 281 wherein it has been h disputing the title of his landlord at the cluded from disputing the derivative title n the basis of transfer from inducting lan ously pays rent to such derivative title h ding to the law no title has really been co y." ase on behalf of appellants that no do from M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal & to 5, was ever filed in court. Thus, in th nt, respondents No.1 to 5 cannot be cover er of Property Act, 1882, in as much as th ithout any document in their favour. H dge did not consider that Section 109 o only be attracted if there is a genuine t ic attornment of tenancy by way of a sham of his submission, learned counsel for the t of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mirk ab Ali 1978 SCC OnLine MP 96 wherein e said case was a bogus and sham transa he tenant has been heir tenancy from roller was without so relies upon the ishra vs Khaitan held that "a tenant time of induction e of a third party dlord and even if, holder, once it is onveyed in favour ocument showing Sons (HUF) to he absence of any red under Section hey are claiming a He states that the of the Transfer of transfer and there m or nominal sale e appellants relies khan Nathhekhan n it has been held action whereby no title passed.

¶11At the outse pendency of the pr He, however, stat deceased responde represented throug

¶12He points o no.1 who was a property, has been Register of Comp ("The Companies striking off was f Tribunal (NCLT), date. Consequentl dismissed on this g

¶13Learned cou 'title' raised by proceeding betwee ownership of the s the plaintiff is the

¶14He contends original landlord – appellants' tenancy its landlords. He p the order dated 19 Delhi in the suit f et learned counsel for the respondents stat resent appeal, respondent No.2 has unfo tes that there is no need to implead th ent No.2, as all the co-owners of the gh respondents No.1 and 3 to 5. out that during pendency of the present tenant and had been put up in posse n struck off vide order dated 20th Novemb panies under Section 248 of The Comp Act"). He states that though an appea filed many years ago with the Nationa yet no order qua revival of the same ha ly, according to him the present appea ground alone. unsel for respondents further points out appellants is a 'boggy' inasmuch as en the landlord and the tenant, there is no suit property. He emphasises what has to landlord of the suit property. s that such a condition is satisfied in the i – M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (H y and declared that the respondents No.1 points out that the said fact had also bee 9th May, 2004 passed by the learned Se filed by appellant no.1 herein and on th tes that during the rtunately expired. he legal heirs of suit property are appeal, appellant ssion of the suit ber, 2019 from the panies Act, 2013 al against the said al Company Law as been passed till al is liable to be that the issue of s in an eviction need to prove the o be proved is that instant case as the HUF) had attorned 1 to 5 had become en incorporated in enior Civil Judge, hat basis, rent had been paid to the re

¶15He submits landlords had atto the suit property ha

¶16In rejoinder off order is still p Court should awa adjourned sine die

¶17Further, lea of the Supreme C Gopal Shri Scrips the judgment of M S.M.I.L.E. Micro Others" in C.R.P. been held as under "11. The suit O.S.No.7 of short-circuit name has b maintained b

¶12The provi 2013, make struck off fr Registrar of been cancell the suit to be the amounts discharge of words, the C Register of C cannot carry have a espondents. that since twelve years have elapsed rned in favour of the respondents, the qu as become irrelevant. , learned counsel for the appellants state pending challenge before the NCLT an ait the said judgment and the procee till then. arned counsel for appellants has relied up Court in Commissioner of Income Tax s Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal no. 2922/2019. Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s Fathi Softward

(MD) No. 176 of 2023 on 16th June, 202 r:- t that has been instituted by the first respond 2016 under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. cann ed, merely because the first respondent's/pla been struck off from the Register of Comp by the Registrar of Companies. sions of Sections 248 and 250 of the Companie it very clear that even if the name of the Comp rom the Register of Companies maintained b f Companies, its registration shall be deemed to led from such date. However, there is no embar e filed or to be continued for the purpose of rea s due to the Company and for the payme f the liabilities or obligations of the Company. In Company, whose name has been struck off fro Companies maintained by the Register of Comp y on any business. However, the proceedings already been initiated for after the original uestion of title of es that the striking nd, therefore, the edings should be pon the judgment x, Jaipur Vs M/s He also relied on t passed in "M/s d (Pvt.) Ltd. and 23, wherein it has dent in not be aintiff's panies es Act, pany is by the o have rgo for alising ent or n other om the panies, which the https://www. purpose of proceeded. S and brought the Company discharging been struck o Registrar of no case mad name of the Companies m

¶18Learned cou 11th November, 20 Consultancy Pvt. L No. 630 of 2011 p it has been held as "29.With reg defendants 1 been https:// determined proceedings, expressed by reason that Black's Law reasonable, the suit that company, "D company can

¶30In this vie was filed in

28.07.2017 o can be proce despite the f register of c this issue is a mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.176 of realising the amount due to the Company c Similarly, the assets of the Company can be att t to sale to discharge the liabilities or obligati y. The Company can also enter into transactio the liabilities and obligations even after its nam off from the Register of Companies maintained f Companies. Therefore, I am of the view that th de out for striking off the plaint, merely becau Company has been struck off from the Regis maintained by the Registrar of Companies." unsel for appellants has also relied upon 022 passed in the case of "The Future Ltd. Vs. M/s Lancor Holdings Limited a passed by the High Court of Judicature at under: gard to the submissions of the learned counsel f 1 to 3 that the amount due to the company mus /www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.630 of 2011 a and not one which has to be determined in this Court is not inclined to subscribe to thi y the learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 f even as per the meaning of the term "due" Dictionary, due includes lawful, remaining u payable. If the plaintiff is able to prove his cla t claim is certainly an amount due to the pl Determined" and "determinable amount" due n be enforced by the company. ew of the matter, this Court finds that the suit n 2011, commencement of examination of PW on the basis of the board resolution on 29.05 eeded for recovery of the amount due to the com fact that the company had been struck off fro companies with effect from 26.09.2017. Accord answered against the defendants 1 to 3." 2023 can be tached ions of ons for me has by the here is use the ster of n judgment dated e Management & nd Others" in CS t Madras, wherein for the st have already n legal s view for the in the unpaid, aim in laintiff to the which W1 on

5.2017, mpany, om the dingly,

¶19We have hea

¶20This Court Aggarwal & Sons suit property, ha respondents No.1 respect of the rente i.e. IInd floor a Connaught Place, 2021 is reproduced Regd. AD/ To M/ M-Ne Kin Sir, As per le between y second flo as M-116A 850/-per m As You kn Developm and Akhil & Sons (H behalf of Aggarwal

(HUF) nam the owners We have a to pay the the aforesa Bansal, 2. Nirmal Ba Sh. Ashok ard learned counsel for the parties and pe finds that the original landlord, M s (HUF) who had put appellant no.1 in d attorned the appellants' tenancy an to 5 had become landlords for all prac ed accommodation, specifically detailed i and mazanine of the property no.M-New Delhi-01. The attornment letter d d hereinbelow:- "Dated:- 31.3 /UPC/SPEEDPOST /s Rajendra Properties (Delhi) (P) Ltd. -52A Connaught Circus ew Delhi-110001 nd Attention Mr. Rajender Jaina ase deed dt. 27.08.1980 and 25.08.1981 exe you and us you are tenant in respect of a porti oor and mazanine in property no. M-116 (now k A) Connaught Place, New Delhi at the rate o month (Rs. 600/-+Rs.250/-) ow that the said property is mutated in the Lan ent office, New Delhi, in the name of Ajay Agg Aggarwal both co-partner of Ved Prakash Agg HUF) and tenancy was created in your favo f owners namely Sh. Ajay Aggarwal and by the Karta of Ved Prakash Aggarwal & mely sh. Ved Prakash Aggarwal who is the fath s of the aforesaid property. already conveyed you telephonically and perso e rent of the aforesaid premises w.e.f. August, aid rate to 1. Sh. Ashok Bansal S/o Sh. Shree K Smt. Murti Devi W/o Sh. Srikishan Bansal, 3 ansal W/o Sh. R.N. Bansal, 4. Smt. Babita Bansa Bansal, 5. Smt. Manju Bansal W/o Sh. Rajesh B erused the record. M/s Ved Prakash possession of the nd declared that ctical purposes in in the Lease Deed -116, (M-116A), dated 31st March,

3.2001 ecuted ion of known of Rs. nd and garwal garwal ur on Akhil Sons her of onally 97 at Kishan . Smt. al W/o Bansal R/o A-26, (Ajay Agg title in the per the Le Now once Bansal in your tenan arrears of rent and i been attor purposes accommod floor and Connaugh Please not With regar Ved Praka

¶21Further, it is in the court of Sen 73/2004, 454/2004 In the said suits,

(HUF) along with In the said suits, o filed its written sta submission of hav 5 herein. In the sa respondents No.2 deposited by appe 2004 passed by Se as here under: "Present: Respondent Preet Vihar, Delhi as we owners of the bu arwal & Akhil Aggarwal) have executed transfe eir favour in respect of the portion in your tenan ase Deed referred above. e again it is requested kindly deal with Sh. A future in respect of the rented accommodati ncy detailed in aforesaid Lease Deed and pa f the rent to him and he is authorized to receiv issue the receipt to you. Therefore your tenanc rned and this have became landlord for all part of you in respect of the aforesaid r dation specifically detailed in the lease deed i.e mazanine of the property no. M-116, (M-1 ht Place, New Delhi-110001. te: Copy kept rds, ash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF)" s also to be noted that appellant no.1 had nior Civil Judge, Delhi being Suit Nos. 66 4, 455/2004, 456/2004 & 374/2004 to dep the original owner M/s Ved Prakash A respondents No.1 to 5 herein were arraye original owner M/s Ved Prakash Aggarw atement whereby it categorically pleaded ving attorned the tenancy in favour of res aid proceedings, respondents No.1 to 5 h to 6, were permitted to withdraw the re llant no.1 herein in court. One such orde enior Civil Judge, Delhi which is on reco Advocate for parties no.1 in the W.S./Reply which is duly supp uilding ferring ncy as Ashok ion in ay the ve the cy has ticular rented e. IInd 116A), filed various suits 64/2003, 72/2004, posit rent in court. Aggarwal & Sons ed as respondents. wal & Sons (HUF) d and reiterated its spondents No.1 to herein, who were ent that had been er dated 19th May, ord, is reproduced pported by affidavit sta respondent n Let responde without preju Accordingly, stands discha Announced i 19/5/2004

¶22It is also to since the original o to 5 herein, neither constituents has de No.1 to 5 herein. I dated 13th May, 20 "5. Howev letter of M/ defendant No back as of No.1/applica Aggarwal & have since t demanded re pleadings an defendants th party to the p in the Cour rights to the rent from the

¶6More No.1/applica Court in Mil ated that he is transfer all his interest in nos. 2 to 6. ent nos. 2 to 6 accept the amount deposited in udice to his rights and claims against the petitio petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed. arged to the extent of amount deposited in the C n open court. DAYA P SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE be noted that now despite passage of m owner attorned the tenancy in favour of r M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (HU emanded the rent from appellant no.1, ex In this regard, learned Single Judge in th 013 has categorically held as follows: ver, what is interesting in the present case is th /s. Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) o. 1/applicant for attorning to the plaintiffs is of 31st January, 2001. The counsel for the defe ant on enquiry states that neither M/s. Ved Pr & Sons (HUF) nor anyone else except the pla then claimed to be the landlord of the premi ent from the defendant No. 1/applicant. It has co nd has not been disputed by the counsels fo hat M/s. Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) proceedings by the defendant No.1 for deposit o rt and in the said proceedings also disclaime property and confirmed the rights of the plain e defendant No. 1/applicant. than twelve years have elapsed since the defe ant was first asked to so attorn the plaintiffs lk Food Vs. Kiran Khanna 51 (1993) DLT 141 favour of the Court oner. Petitioner Court. Sd/- PRAKASH E, DELHI" more than 22 years respondents No.1 UF) nor any of its xcept respondents e impugned order hat the to the f as far fendant rakash aintiffs ises or ome in for the was a of rent ed any tiffs to fendant s. This has in a similar si during the p irrespective claiming to b relationship.

¶7It is sig as the pres irrelevant an be placed o 2335, State o and Jai Bha

¶23It is pertinen Prasad Vs. Mohd. definition of land receiving rent, wh person or as a trust been held as follow "12. From definition is not only the his own acc person or as is also the l tenant on the one must sho ………….

¶15On the q Court have Transfer of P "109. R the pro interes to the c so elec the pro of it; b cease him b ituation held that where twelve years have pendency of suit, notice thereof can be take of a deficiency in title even if any of the p be the landlord, it is not open to the tenant to de gnificant that in a suit between a landlord and t sent suit professes to be, the question of t nd not to be adjudicated. Reliance in this regar on Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagqnnath AIR 19 of A.P. Vs. D. Raghukul Parshad (2012) 8 SC wan Mittal Vs. Meena Join MANU/DE/0587/20 nt to note here that Supreme Court in th . Alam and Another, (2015) 13 SCC 13 dlord includes not only the owner but hether on his own account or for the ben tee, guardian, or receiver for any other pe ws: the definition of "landlord", it is clear th couched in a very wide language, according to owner but also any person receiving rent, whet ount or on behalf of or for the benefit of any a trustee, guardian, or receiver for any other p landlord. However, for the purpose of eviction e ground of personal need or reasonable require ow that he is the owner of the building. question of tenancy, both the trial court and the not considered the provision of Section 109 Property Act. Rights of lessor's transferee.—If the lessor tra operty leased, or any part thereof, or any part st therein, the transferee, in the absence of a co contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the cts, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor operty or part transferred so long as he is the but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such tr to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed y the lease, unless the lessee elects to tre lapsed en and person eny the tenant, title is rd can 76 SC CC 584 013". e case of Ambica 3 has held that the also any person nefit of any other erson. Thus, it has at the which ther on y other person, n of a ement, e High of the ansfers of his ontract lessee r as to owner ransfer d upon at the transfe Provid due be reason rent to rent ov The le what p lease i case th court posses From a peru the transfer gets all righ tenancy. The only when th the landlord the rights an the subsistin transfer of t tenant attorn confer valid attornment b 106 in term (sic transfere ejectment."

¶24The aforesa dated 19th May, 20 Senior Civil Judge the respondents N deposited in the Co

¶25Since more asked to attorn to impugned order co Kiran Khanna; 51 eree as the person liable to him: ded that the transferee is not entitled to arrears o efore the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not h n to believe that such transfer has been made o the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay ver again to the transferee. essor, the transferee and the lessee may dete proportion of the premium or rent reserved b is payable in respect of the part so transferred, a hey disagree, such determination may be made b having jurisdiction to entertain a suit fo ssion of the property leased." usal of the aforesaid section, it is manifest tha of lessor's right in favour of the transferee, the ts and liabilities of the lessor in respect of sub e section does not insist that transfer will take he tenant attorns. It is well settled that a transfe d's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord w nd liabilities of the transferor landlord in resp ng tenancy. The section does not require th the right of the landlord can take effect only ns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necess dity of the transfer of the landlord's rights. by the tenant is not required, a notice under S ms of the old terms of lease by the tran ee) landlord would be proper and so also the s aid detailed discussion clearly manifests 004, the original landlord had affirmed b e, Delhi that he had transferred all his int No.1 to 5 and they were entitled to ac ourt, without prejudice to their rights and than twelve years have elapsed after ap o respondents No.1 to 5, learned Sing orrectly relying upon the decision passed 1 (1993) DLT 141 held that irrespective of rent having e, pays y such ermine by the and, in by any or the at after e latter sisting e effect eree of with all pect of hat the if the sary to Since Section nsferor suit for that in the order before the learned terest in favour of ccept the amount d claims. ppellant no.1 was gle Judge in the d in Milk Food vs of any deficiency in title of the perso to deny the relatio finding of the learn need not be adjudi

¶26In view of questioning the en property in questio

¶27Another imp appellant no.1 has Section 248 of the 2019. Though the NCLT since the ye appellant no.1 has Therefore, appella maintain the prese company and thus,

¶28Reliance on herein is totally mi follows: "250. Effec company sta the date me section ceas Incorporatio from such da to the compa or obligation

¶29Reading of t stand dissolved up on claiming to be the landlord, it is not o onship. Consequently, this Court is in ag ned Single Judge that the question of title cated. the aforesaid, the plea raised on beh ntitlement and status of respondents N on is found without any merits. portant aspect to be noted by this Cour s been struck off from the Register of C e Companies Act, 2013 vide order dated appeal on behalf of appellant no.1 is pe ear 2021, yet despite lapse of reasonable not been restored on the Register of Co nt no.1/Company is not a legal entity as o ent proceedings. Appellant no.1 has cease , cannot maintain the present proceedings n Section 250 of the Companies Act, 20 isplaced. Section 250 of the Companies A ct of company notified as dissolved.— Wh ands dissolved under section 248, it shall on and entioned in the notice under sub-section (5) o se to operate as a company and the Certific on issued to it shall be deemed to have been can ate except for the purpose of realising the amou any and for the payment or discharge of the liab ns of the company." the aforesaid Section makes it evident tha pon removal of its name from the Regist open to the tenant greement with the e is irrelevant and half of appellants No.1 to 5 qua the rt is that name of Companies under d 20th November, ending before the time the name of ompanies till date. on date which can ed to operate as a s. 013 by appellants Act, 2013 reads as here a d from of that cate of ncelled unt due bilities at a company will ter of Companies, except for the purp the payment or di The present proc purpose of realizin discharge of the judgments relied o not assist appellan pertain to cases wh of amounts due t proceedings.

¶30Similarly, th M/s Gopal Shri Sc to the assistance o claim of Income T filed an appeal be appeal was dismis company had bee thereof, Supreme Department by Hig case falls on a diff company falls w obligations of the the issue of realiza discharge of the Therefore, the afo and circumstances pose of realizing the amount due to the ischarge of the liabilities or obligations eedings pending before this Court are ng the amount due to the company nor fo liabilities or obligations of the com on behalf of appellants are clearly distin nts in any manner. The judgments of M herein the dissolved company had filed to the company, which is not the cas he judgment in Commissioner of Incom crips Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal no. 2922/201 of appellants in any manner. The said ca Tax Department wherein the Income Tax efore Rajasthan High Court against a co sed by the High Court on the ground tha en struck off from the Register of Com Court held that dismissal of appeal gh Court was not legally sustainable. How ferent footing. Claim by Income Tax aut within the purview of discharge of th company. Whereas, the present appeal d ation of any amount due to the appellant liabilities or obligations of appellant oresaid judgment would have no applica of the present case. company and for of the company. e neither for the or the payment or mpany. Thus, the nguishable and do adras High Court suits for recovery se in the present e Tax, Jaipur Vs 19, does not come ase deals with the x Department had ompany. The said at the name of the mpanies. In view of Income Tax wever, the present thorities against a he liabilities and does not deal with no. 1 company or no. 1 company. ability to the facts

¶31It is to be n with respect to rec of ejectment was possession sought regards the relief impugned order da issue on the said a the said issue rega Single Judge is st Therefore, appella same relates to th appellants.

¶32Since this C not maintainable b stands dissolved in of Companies, it i present appeal. Th inducted into sub-t no.1. Therefore, o respondents No. 1 owner from whom in question.

¶33In view of t appeal is not main finds no ground learned Single Jud oted that the learned Single Judge had se covery of possession and recovery of mesn s passed against appellants herein qu on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 her f of mesne profits against appellants ated 23rd May, 2013, learned Single Judg aspect. It was further directed that eviden arding claim of mesne profits. The suit b till pending on the aspect of recovery ants would have the right to defend the he liabilities or obligations that may be Court has come to a finding that the presen by appellant no.1 in view of the fact that n view of its name having been removed is held that the other appellants also can his is for the the reason that other appe tenancy by appellant no.1 or other sub-ten other appellants do not have any privity 1 to 5 herein, as they were not inducte m respondents No.1 to 5 derive their right the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is hel ntainable by appellants. Further, on merit for interference in the impugned order dge. egregated the suit ne profits. Decree ua the relief of rein. However, as s herein, by the ge had framed an nce shall be led on before the learned of mesne profits. e said suit as the e levied upon the nt proceedings are the same already from the Register nnot maintain the ellants have been nants of appellant y of contract with ed by the original over the property ld that the present ts also, this Court rs passed by the

¶34Accordingly maintainability. AUGUST 08, 202 KA/au y, the present appeal is dismissed bot M MINI P th on merits and MANMOHAN, J PUSHKARNA, J

* IN THE H + RFA(OS) 84 M/S RAJEN PVT. LTD. ASHOK BA % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. J HON'BLE MS. JU MANMOHAN, J 1. Present app dated 23rd May 20 Single Judge in C Judge has dismiss Code of Civil Pro herein and has pa mesne profits. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW 4/2013 & C.M.No.37241/2023 NDRAS PROPERTIES (DELHI) & ORS. Through: Mrs. Kajal Chandra Aggarwal and M Advocates. versus ANSAL & ORS. Through: Mr.Vidit Gupta with Singh, Advocates. Date of Decision: 0 JUSTICE MANMOHAN USTICE MINI PUSHKARNA