Delhi High Court - Orders
Ram Kishore Gupta vs Sanjay Sharma & Anr on 19 September, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~188
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 583/2023 & CM APPL. 37641/2023 CM APPL. 6418/2024 CM
APPL. 22230/2024 CM APPL. 42321/2024 CM APPL. 59007/2025
RAM KISHORE GUPTA .....Appellant
Through: Appellant (in-person) with Mr.
Ashutosh Sharma, Mr. S.L. Gupta
and Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Advocates.
versus
SANJAY SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Gupta, Mr. Ankit Verma
and Mr. Govind Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 19.09.2025 By way of the present regular first appeal filed under section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC'), the appellant impugns judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge-03, Shahadara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in suit bearing CS No. 684 of 2017.
2. Impugned judgment dated 10.05.2023 is premised essentially on the statement of appellant (defendant No.2 in the amended suit) which was recorded by the learned trial court on 16.07.2019 under Order X Rule 1 CPC. Based on that statement, the learned trial court has proceeded to decree the suit, insofar as the relief of possession is concerned, on the principles of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The statement recorded on 16.07.2019 reads as under:
RFA 583/2023 Page 1 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 22:08:52 "(This defendant is confronted with the original documents produced by the plaintiff in the course of enquiry u/o 10 of CPC.) I entered into the suit property on 14.11.2014. The plaintiff and the one Vinay Jain Director of D-1-company inducted me. I do not have any document executed by plaintiff Shri Sanjay Sharma for having inducted me into the possession of the suit property.
There is no lease deed in my favour. I have no document to show that I am put in possession by the plaintiff. The MOU that I relied dated 14.11.2014 by which I was put in possession by the defendant no.1 is not signed by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff is the promoter and stake holder of defendant no.1-company but I do not have any document to assert this fact.
I have seen the registered lease deed relied by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1. I do not admit this document. The same is fictitious.
I have also seen the conveyance deed by DDA in favour of the Shri R. P. Singh dated 16.05.1984. I neither admit it nor deny it.
I also deny the gift deed dated 25.11.2010 in favour of the plaintiff executed by Ms. Chandra Pritha Sharma.
I am in the possession of the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff. There is nothing in writing to show the consent of the plaintiff."
3. Clearly therefore, in his statement recoded under Order X Rule 1 CPC, the appellant had admitted that he had entered upon possession of the suit property, viz., the Third Floor of property bearing Plot No.215, Block-C, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi on 14.11.2014 through M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 in the present proceedings and defendant No.1 in the amended suit) and through one of its Directors Mr. Vinay Jain.
4. The appellant had also admitted in his statement, that he neither had any document executed by the plaintiff, Mr. Sanjay Sharma (respondent No.1 in the present proceedings), inducting him in the RFA 583/2023 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 22:08:52 suit property, nor did he have any lease deed or other document to show that he was put in possession of the suit property by respondent No.1.
5. The essential defence taken by the appellant in the suit was that he had signed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.11.2014 ('MoU'), a copy of which is appended at page 212 of the present appeal, under which MoU, the appellant had allegedly given to M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. a friendly loan of Rs. 1 crore. It was the appellant's defence that in lieu of that loan, apparently by way of 'collateral security', M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. had put the appellant in possession of the suit property until the loan was repaid in-full in terms of clause 4 of that MoU, which reads as under:
"4. As additional collateral security flat no C-215 third floor Surajmal Vihar Delhi 110095 which owned by the first party is physically given to the second party to which second party can use the same upto the full & final payment of this friendly loan and interest. Whereas the first party shall not charge any amount or rent for the use of this flat from second party as aforesaid."
6. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent No.1, that the only contesting respondent in the matter viz., M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. was occupying the suit property under lease deed dated 21.03.2015, which was a duly registered document; and pursuant to that lease, respondent No.1 had issued to M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. a notice dated 04.11.2016 under section 106 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, seeking the vacation of the suit property.
7. The appellant admits that M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. did not contest the suit, and that they were proceeded ex-parté.
RFA 583/2023 Page 3 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 22:08:52
8. In this factual backdrop, the learned trial court has proceeded to decree the suit, insofar as the relief of possession is concerned, by observing the following:
"4. An application u/o 12 rule 6 CPC was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein it is stated that summons of the suit were issued however, defendant no. 1 has not appeared but defendant no. 2 has appeared and his statement has been recorded u/o 10 CPC wherein he has admitted that there is no lease deed or any document in his favour wherein he was put in possession by the plaintiff. He has further admitted that the MOU dated 14.11.2014 relied upon by defendant no. 2 through which he was put in possession by defendant no. 1 is not signed by plaintiff. Thus, in view of admissions made by defendant no. 2, a decree of possession may be passed in his favour.
"5. Summons were issued upon defendant no. 1 who has failed to appear despite service and his right to file WS was closed vide order dated 03.05.2018. WS has been filed on behalf of defendant no.2 wherein he has denied all the contents of the plaint and has raised some additional pleas. In additional pleas, it is stated that the lease deed executed by defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff is a false lease deed. It is stated that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1 as the plaintiff is the stake holder and promoter of all the funds and projects of defendant no. 1. He has further sated that the lease deed has been executed with AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. however, the same is signed by AVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. and AVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. are different person and hence the same is not signed by AVJ Developers India Pvt. Ltd. and same is a fictitious document. He has also alleged that in the lease deed it is stated that the area is 121.90 sq. meters and however, the actual area of the suit property is 160 sq. yards. The defendant no. 2 has further stated that defendant no. 1 was never a tenant of the suit property under the plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1 had impleaded Ram Kishore as a party in this case, however, the name of defendant is Ram Kishore Gupta and it is submitted that plaintiff tried to obtain an order of possession of the suit property by trying to mislead the court. He has further stated that he RFA 583/2023 Page 4 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 22:08:52 has not received the legal notice issued by plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the suit property and the present suit has been filed as a counter blast to a suit filed u/s. 138 NI Act by defendant no. 2 against defendant no. 1 for recovery of amount of Rs.1.55 crores.
***** "19. Perusal of the judgment reveals that when plaintiff has established his title to the suit property then the onus is upon the defendant to state in what capacity he is occupying the suit property that is what authority he has to continue in possession.
***** "21. Perusal of the examination of defendant no. 2 reveals that he has stated that there is no lease deed in his favour wherein he was put in possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. He has further admitted that he is in possession of the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff. Thus, defendant no. 2 is admitting that he is in possession of the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff. In that case, he is a permissive user and as the plaintiff is seeking recovery of the suit property from him which means that his consent to continue in possession of the suit property has been withdrawn and he is liable to return the same to the plaintiff.
"22. The defendant in this case has also stated that he is in possession of the suit property in pursuance of MOU dated 14.11.2014 executed by defendant no. 1 in his favour. The defendant no 2 has filed on record the MOU. The relevant clause of MOU is reproduced as below:
"4. As additional collateral security flat no. C- 215 third floor Surajmal Vihar Delhi 110095 which owned by the first party is physically given to the second party to which second party can use the same upto the full & final payment of this friendly loan and interest. Whereas the first party shall not charge any amount or rent for the use of this flat from second party as aforesaid."
"23. Perusal of MOU filed on record by defendant no. 2 reveals that the ownership/title of the suit property has not been transferred in favour of defendant no. 1. In fact, the same is handed over by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 as a collateral security which means that it is a mortgaged deed. Perusal of the document further reveals that the same is not a registered document. As such, RFA 583/2023 Page 5 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 22:08:52 defendant no. 2 cannot claim title on the basis of MOU dated 14.11.2014. Moreover, he cannot retain the possession on the basis of the said document."
9. As a sequitur to the above, the learned trial court has concluded as follows:
"30. In this case, the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession which itself amount to notice to quit to the defendant whose is only a permissive user and is not even a tenant. In view of the above stated discussions, the plaintiff has been able to prove all the necessary ingredients for passing of decree of possession in his favour. Hence, the decree of the possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant no 2 qua the suit property i.e. 3rd floor of property bearing no. C-215 (Plot no. 215, Block C), situated at Surajmal Vihar, Delhi-110092."
10. The court has heard the appellant Mr. Ram Kishor Gupta, who is an Advocate by profession, but is appearing in the present case as party- in-person; and Mr. Vivek Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 at length.
11. Upon considering the admissions made by appellant in his statement recorded by the learned trial court on 16.07.2019under Order X Rule 1 CPC; and the defence taken by appellant by way of MoU dated 14.11.2014, this court is of the view that at best, the appellant may have a claim against respondent No.2arising from the terms of MoU dated 14.11.2014; but the appellant cannot claim any right to continue in possession of the suit property as against respondent No.1, who is the owner of the property.
12. In the circumstances, this court finds nothing remiss in impugned judgment dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned trial court; and RFA 583/2023 Page 6 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 22:08:52 nothing has come-forth in the present appeal that warrants any interference in that judgment.
13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
14. All pending applications stand disposed-of.
15. Needless to add that suit pending before the learned trial court in relation to the relief of mesne-profits shall continue, in accordance with law.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2025/ss RFA 583/2023 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 22:08:52