Valmiki J. Mehta, J. - (1.)Cm No. 33502/2018 (Exemption) in RFA No.677/2018 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.

RFA No.677/2018 & RFA No.678/2018

These two Regular First Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.3.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff of possession and mesne profits with respect to two premises, the first being of a Quarter No. 71 of property bearing Block No.1, Bengalimal Market, New Delhi and second being a Shop No.46, Block No.1, Bengalimal Market, New Delhi. Essentially what is decided by the impugned judgment is that the tenant Sh. Guljari Lal died leaving behind any legal heirs and that though the appellant no.3/defendant no.4/Sh. Amit Gupta claimed to be the adopted son of late Sh. Guljari Lal, however, Sh. Amit Gupta has not been found to be the adopted son of late Sh. Guljari Lal and hence Sh. Amit Gupta will not inherit the tenancy rights of Sh. Guljari Lal/deceased tenant.

(2.)The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the subject suits pleading ownership of the two premises as the same devolved upon him from his grand-mother Smt. Vidyawati. Between the legal heirs of Smt. Vidyawati, and which included the respondent/plaintiff, a partition took place vide registered Partition Deed dated 9.6.2000 and the suit properties consequently fell to the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff. The subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff by pleading that since the tenant Sh. Guljari Lal had died without leaving behind any legal heirs, the appellants/defendants are illegal occupants of the suit property and the suits for possession and mesne profits be decreed.
(3.)Written statement was filed by the appellants/defendants. One written statement was filed by the appellants no. 1 and 2 who were the defendants no. 2 and One written statement was filed by the appellant no.3/defendant no.4/Sh. Amit Gupta. In essence, the defence of the appellants/defendants was that the tenant Sh. Guljari Lal before his death, on 7.6.1998, adopted appellant no.3/defendant no.4/Sh. Amit Gupta, and therefore, appellant no.3/defendant no.4/Sh. Amit Gupta as the adopted son of late tenant Sh. Guljari Lal inherited the tenancy rights in the suit properties. The suit properties admittedly are properties having the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.