Delhi District Court
Syed Tahir Ali And Ors vs Mohd. Saleem And Ors on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH,
DISTRICT JUDGE-13, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ No. 825/2018
CNR No. DLCT01-003269-2018
In the matter of:
Mohd. Asif,
S/o. Late Mohd Bashirs
R/o. 2433 3rd Floor,
Gali Abdul Qadir Behind G. B. Road,
Delhi- 110006
......... Counter-Claimant
VERSUS
1. Mohd. Saleem,
S/o. Late Mr. Mohd. Shafi,
R/o. 2433, First Floor,
Gali Abdul Qadir,
Behind G. B. Road,
Delhi- 110006
2. Syed Tahir Ali
S/o. Late Syed Nisar Ali
R/o. 1709 Gali Nagine Wali
Rod Gran, Lal Kuan,
Delhi -110006,
3. Syed Nazim Ali
S/o. Late Syed Nisar Ali
R/o. 1709 Gali Nagine Wali
Rod Gran, Lal Kuan,
Delhi -110006,
........... Defendants
Digitally
signed by
TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22
15:14:01
+0530
CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.1 / 23
Date of Institution : 07.03.2018
Date of Judgment : 18.04.2026
JUDGMENT
Preface:
1. Mohd. Asif (defendant No.2 in the main suit) has filed counter claim requesting the Court to declare registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 executed by Mohd. Saleem in favour Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali as illegal, forged, fraudulent and ineffective.
Case of the Counter claimant:
2. As averred in the counter-claim, plaintiffs, in collusion with defendant Mohd. Saleem have filed suit for recovery of possession, damage and mesne profits with intention to cause immense loss and irreparable injury to Mohd. Asif who being lawful tenant of the 3rd floor of property No.2433, Gali Abdul Qadir, behind G.B. Road, Delhi- 110006 has been paying monthly rent Rs.1,500/- exclusive of electricity and water charges.
3. It is submitted that Mohd. Asif was asked to deposit Rs.3,00,000/-, to be refunded at the time of vacating the premises, along with electricity and water charges at the time of being inducted in the premises on 17.12.2010 and continued to remain in physical possession of the 3rd floor with his family till he was forced by Mohd. Saleem to pay monthly rent Rs.1500/- in addition to Rs.3,00,000/- deposited at the Digitally signed by TARUN time of being inducted as tenant.
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22
15:14:07
+0530
CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.2 / 23
4. Defendant Mohd. Saleem, being landlord, is alleged to have pressurized Mohd. Asif to pay additional Rs.1,00,000/- since March, 2014 and another sum of Rs.50,000/- was eventually paid to Mohd. Saleem on 07.05.2014. Defendant No.1, nonetheless, continued to demand enhanced rent @ Rs.5,000/- and threatened to dispossess Mohd. Asif from the 3rd floor and/or disconnect its electricity and water supply leading to complaint lodged with police on 19.08.2015.
5. Defendant(s) Mohd. Saleem and Mohd. Asif were called at the Police Station on 26.08.2015 and another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was demanded for selling the 3 rd floor which was acceded and additional Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to Mohd.
Saleem in the presence of Sajid and Suhwaleen. Defendant Mohd. Saleem, having received Rs.7,50,000/- towards sale price of 3rd floor, did not appear before Sub Registrar on 23.09.2015 to execute sale deed of the property and also failed to perform his part of agreement on one pretext or the other despite service of notice.
6. It is, therefore, contended that though Mohd. Asif is occupying 3rd floor of the property as tenant but he is the actual and absolute owner of property having paid its sale price to Mohd. Saleem. Defendant/counter-claimant, in addition, has also averred about petition for restoration of electricity connection under Section 45(3) of Delhi Rent Control Act which is pending before Ld. ARC, Delhi and filed Digitally signed by counter-claim requesting the Court to declare sale deed dated TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:14:12 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.3 / 23 11.11.2010 executed by Mohd. Saleem in favour of plaintiffs as illegal, forged, fabricated and ineffective which was executed with malafide intention to grab his money. Case of plaintiffs:
7. Plaintiffs Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali have opposed the counter-claim seeking its dismissal with heavy cost by inter alia contending that:-
i. License of defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem has been terminated on 02.08.2015 followed by legal notice dated 19.09.2015 calling upon defendants to handover peaceful physical vacant possession of premises within 07 days up to 28.09.2015 and both defendants are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the property;
ii. Defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif is claiming title/ownership in the garb of counter-claim for declaring registered sale deed as illegal & ineffective and is bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction;
iii. No right, title or interest in the 3rd floor of property has been conveyed/assigned in the absence of registered sale deed as required under sections 54 & 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882;
iv. Registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 was executed in their favour and physical vacant possession of property was also handed over by defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem Digitally who was allowed to stay in the premises as permissive signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:14:17 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.4 / 23 user for short period which was extended from time to time till termination of license on 02.08.2015 and criminal complaint was also lodged at PS Kamla Market, New Delhi on 18.08.2005 vide Diary No. 36B.
Case of Defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem:
8. Defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem has supported plaintiffs' case and prayed for dismissal of counter-claim with heavy cost by contending that:-
i. Suit property was sold vide registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 and physical vacant possession was also handed over to plaintiffs Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali;
ii. Defendant Mohd. Saleem was allowed by plaintiffs to stay in the premises as permissive user without any license fee and/or security for a short period whereas defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif (counter-claimant) having approached and requested Mohd. Saleem was permitted to stay in a room with his family on humanitarian grounds and without charging any rent; iii. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited by Mohd. Asif as per terms and conditions of Rent Agreement dated 16.12.2010 which was returned at the time of vacating the premises;
iv. Defendant Mohd. Saleem failed to find suitable Digitally accommodation and was compelled to seek permission signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:14:23 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.5 / 23 to stay in the premises for further six months which was allowed by plaintiffs in March, 2015 and defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif having approached him again in July, 2015 was permitted to stay in suit premises for a short period upon his assurance to vacate the premises; v. Plaintiffs, thereafter, came to takeover vacant physical possession of the 3rd floor of property in August, 2015 and terminated his license after they found Mohd. Asif occupying the suit premises. Physical vacant possession of the property however could not be handed over to plaintiffs as defendant No.2 refused to vacate the premises notwithstanding termination of license in his presence on 02.08.2015 and lodged false, bogus and frivolous complaint dated 19.08.2015 followed by suit for recovery of possession, damage/mesne profits filed by plaintiffs and institution of false and frivolous counter-claim on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
9. Averments in the counter-claim have been disputed by plaintiffs and defendant Mohd. Saleem in para wise reply on merit.
Trial:
10. Following issues were settled in the main suit and counter-
claim on 22.03.2018 after replication and completion of pleadings.
TARUN YOGESH Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH Date: 2026.04.22 15:14:28 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.6 / 23 i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property a flat situated at 3rd floor in property no. 2433, Gali Abdul Qadir, behind G.B. Road, Delhi-110006 against defendant no. 2 admeasuring 30.52 sq. mtrs. by virtue of sale deed dated 11.11.2010? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.24,928/- against the defendant no. 2 on account of damages @ Rs.500/- from the date of service of legal notice dated 29.09.2015 till the date of filing of the suit and further mesne profits @ Rs.500/- per day from 29.09.2015 till the receipt of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on the due amount @ 18% p.a. against the defendant no. 2?OPP iv. Whether the defendant no. 2 has taken the suit premises on rent on 17.01.2010 from defendant no. 1? OPD-2 v. Whether the defendant no. 1 has inducted defendant no. 2 as tenant in the suit property in the month of December 2010? OPD-1 vi. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by jurisdiction under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in view of rent of the suit property is Rs.1500/- per month under tenancy of defendant no. 1? OPD-2 vii. Whether the defendant no. 2 is beneficiary u/sec. 53A of Transfer of Property Act having purchased the suit property from defendant no. 1? OPD-2 viii. Whether counter claim is barred due to TARUN deficient court fees claiming title over the suit property? OPP/Plaintiff' YOGESH Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH Date: 2026.04.22 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.7 / 23 15:14:34 +0530
11. Witnesses examined by plaintiffs in the main suit which has been treated as leading case include:
i. PW2 Ms. Archana Shakya, J.J.A in the Court of Ld. ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi who has produced original record of MU No.16/2015 titled Mohd. Asif vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors which was dismissed as withdrawn and adverted to its certified copy referred as Ex.PW2/1 (colly); ii. PW3 Sh. Ram Prakash, Assistant, Grade-I, BSES YPL, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 who has produced record of Electricity Meter bearing CA No.100236910 in the name of Syed Tahir Ali from 07.12.2010 to 14.09.2015 referred as Ex.PW3/1 (colly);
iii. PW4 Shakil Ahmad, Junior Associate IT, Key Processing Officer, BSES YPL, Enforcement Office, Patparganj, I.P Extension, Delhi who has brought Record of Enforcement CA No.400897835 bearing Case ID No.YM220716CY116 of the 3rd floor of property No.2433, Gali Abdul Qadir behind G.B. Road, Delhi which was inspected on 22.07.2016 and affirmed Assessment Bill of Rs. 19,933/- for Direct Theft of electricity referred as Ex.PW4/1 (colly); iv. PW5 Ct. Ravi Kumar, No.982/C, P.S Kamla Market, Delhi who has alluded to complaint dated 18.08.2015 Digitally bearing DD No.86B lodged by plaintiff against Mohd. signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:14:47 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.8 / 23 Asif AND adverted to its copy and statement of parties referred as Ex.PW5/1 (colly);
v. PW6 Sh. Daulat Ram Kashyap, UDC (Record Keeper) Sub-Registrar - III, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi who has alluded to copy of Sale Deed duly registered on 11.11.2010 bearing Registration No.11,102 entered in Book No.I Volume No.13,924 on pages 33 to 41 referred as Ex.PW6/1 AND copy of registered Lease Deed dated 22.08.2015 executed by Ms. Shahnaz in favour of Ms. Monika and Nargis bearing Registration No.6346 entered in Book No.1, Volume No.16,135 on pages 133 to 140 referred as Ex.PW6/2;
vi. PW7 Chhedi Lal Maurya, J.A, Record Rooom (Session), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi who has produced Judicial Record of RCT Appeal No.30/356 titled as Mohd. Asif vs. Mohd. Saleem decided on 11.05.2017 bearing Goshwara No.345/D, Central and alluded to certified copy of - (a) petition under section 38 of DRC Act; (b) petition under section 45 (3) of DRC Act AND
(c) final order dated 11.05.2017 passed by Sh. Talwant Singh, the then, Ld. Rent Control Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as Ex.PW7/1 (colly); vii. Syed Tahir Ali examined as PW8 who has reiterated averments in the plaint in affidavit Ex.PW8/A and relied upon copy of sale deed & site-plan referred as Digitally signed by Ex.PW6/1 (colly) in addition to - (a) copy of complaint TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:14:54 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.9 / 23 dated 18.08.2015 lodged at P.S Kamla Market referred as Ex.PW8/1; (b) copy of electricity bills - Mark PW8/1 to Mark PW 8/3; (c) copy of legal notice dated 19.09.2015, delivery report & reply dated 26.09.2015 referred as Ex.PW8/4 to Ex.PW8/11 AND (d) certified copy of registered lease deed dated 22.08.2015 referred as Ex.PW6/2.
12. Cross-examination of PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 & PW8 have been recorded and plaintiff's evidence was closed on 15.11.2022.
13. Defendant Mohd. Saleem examined as DW1 has supported and corroborated plaintiffs' case by deposing about - (i) sale deed for total sale consideration Rs.3,60,000/- duly registered vide Registration No.11,102 entered in Book No. I, Volume No.13,924, pages 33 to 41 on 11.11.2010 AND (ii) peaceful vacant physical possession of premises delivered to plaintiffs who became absolute owners of the property.
14. DW1, in addition, has also deposed about electricity meter installed in the name of Syed Tahir Ali and claimed to have requested plaintiffs to allow him to stay in the premises for a short period on license basis which was acceded whereas defendant Mohd. Asif having approached and requested to accommodate him and his family in the premises was allowed to stay in a room for a short period without charging any rent solely on humanitarian grounds and Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited as security was refunded to the counter-claimant at the time Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:00 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.10 / 23 of vacating the premises in terms of rent agreement dated 16.12.2010.
15. DW1 Mohd. Saleem has further deposed to have approached plaintiffs in March, 2015 seeking permission to stay in the premises as licensee for another six months and allowed Mohd. Asif to stay in the premises for a short period in July, 2015 before termination of license by plaintiffs in August, 2015 followed by false, bogus and frivolous complaint dated 19.08.2015 lodged by defendant Mohd. Asif.
16. Cross-examination of DW1 by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has been recorded.
17. Defendant Mohd. Asif, however, for inexplicable reason did not cross-examine DW1 Mohd. Saleem.
18. Mohd. Asif examined as DW2 has reiterated averments in the written statement & counter-claim in affidavit Ex.DW2/A tendered in evidence by relying upon following documents:
i. Copy of Rent Agreement dated 16.12.2010 -
Ex.DW2/2;
ii. Copy of Rent Agreement dated 09.03.2012 -
Ex.DW2/3;
iii. Copy of Rent Agreement dated 07.05.2014 -
Ex.DW2/4;
iv. Copy of Receipt dated 10.09.2015 - Ex.DW2/5; v. Receipt Book (B) Sub- Registrar Office dated 23.09.2015 (cash receipt) - Ex.DW2/7.
Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:05 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.11 / 23
19. Mohd. Sajid and Mohd. Suhawleen, brothers of Mohd. Asif, examined as DW3 and DW4 have deposed about Receipt dated 10.09.2015 acknowledging total sale consideration Rs. 7,50,000/- received by defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem in their affidavits Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW4/A tendered in evidence.
20. Cross-examination of DW2, DW3 and DW4 have been recorded and defendant's evidence was eventually closed on 21.01.2026.
21. Application under Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling order dated 21.01.2026 by adverting to order dated 09.10.2024 of Ld. District Judge-04, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was dismissed on 25.02.2026 followed by dismissal of application requesting to adjourn the case for assailing order dated 25.02.2026 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Discussion and Conclusion:
22. Advocate Sh. Anis-ur-Rehman for plaintiffs, Advocate Ms. Jhuma Bose for defendant Mohd. Saleem and Advocate Sh.
Yashpal Bharti for counter-claimant Mohd. Asif have addressed their arguments in addition to written submissions on behalf of plaintiff and defendant Mohd. Saleem.
23. I have considered their submissions and carefully perused pleadings and evidence adduced on judicial file.
24. Issues settled in the counter-claim are taken up before adverting to issues settled in the main suit.
Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:10 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.12 / 23
25. Issue No.4 Whether the defendant no. 2 has taken the suit premises on rent on 17.01.2010 from defendant no. 1? OPD-2
26. Mohd. Asif having asseverated lawful possession of suit property since January 2010 in para 3 of the counter-claim has nonetheless averred that suit premises was initially taken on 17.12.2010 in para 4 of the counter-claim and he along with his family continued to remain in physical possession of the 3rd floor by paying electricity and water charges till he was forced to pay monthly rent Rs. 1500/- in addition to Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited at the time of being inducted as tenant.
27. Aforesaid averments have been reiterated in para 3 & 4 of affidavit Ex. DW2/A tendered in evidence and Mohd. Asif has relied upon copy of rent agreements dated 16.12.2010, 09.03.2012 & 07.05.2014 referred as Ex. DW2/2 to Ex. DW2/4 respectively.
28. Advocate Ms. Jhuma Bose for Mohd. Saleem, per contra, would urged that Mohd. Asif having approached and requested to accommodate him and his family in the premises was allowed to stay in a room for a short period without charging any rent solely on humanitarian grounds and Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited as security was refunded to the counter- claimant at the time of vacating the premises in terms of rent agreement dated 16.12.2010. Copies of rent agreement dated 09.03.2012 & 07.05.2014 have been disputed by Ld. Counsel Digitally for defendant No.1 as being forged and fabricated. signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:14 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.13 / 23
29. It is relevant to note that defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif in reply dated 26.09.2015 has claimed to have taken the premises on 17.01.2010 and continued to reside in the premises with his family since 17.10.2010. However, no averment and/or cogent evidence has been led to verify possession of premises since 17.01.2010.
30. Finding: Issue No.4 is therefore decided against defendant No.2/counter-claimant Mohd. Asif in the absence of evidence to establish that suit premises was indeed let out on rent by Mohd. Saleem on 17.01.2010.
31. Issue No.5 Whether the defendant no. 1 has inducted defendant no. 2 as tenant in the suit property in the month of December 2010? OPD-1
32. As averred in the counter-claim, defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif was asked to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- along with electricity and water charges at the time of being inducted in the premises on 17.12.2010 and continued to remain in physical possession of the 3rd floor with his family till he was forced by Mohd.
Saleem to pay monthly rent Rs.1500/- in addition to Rs.3,00,000/- deposited at the time of being inducted as tenant.
33. Defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem has rebutted his contention by inter alia submitting that:
i. Suit property was sold vide registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 and physical vacant possession was also Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:19 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.14 / 23 handed over to plaintiffs Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali;
ii. Defendant Mohd. Saleem was allowed by plaintiffs to stay in the premises as permissive user without any license fee and/or security for a short period whereas defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif (counter-claimant) having approached and requested Mohd. Saleem was permitted to stay in a room with his family on humanitarian grounds and without charging any rent; iii. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited by Mohd. Asif as per terms and conditions of Rent Agreement dated 16.12.2010 which was returned at the time of vacating the premises;
iv. Defendant Mohd. Saleem was allowed by plaintiffs to stay in the premises for further 6 months in March, 2015 and defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif having approached him again in July, 2015 was permitted to stay in suit premises for a short period upon his assurance to vacate the premises; v. Plaintiffs, thereafter, came to takeover vacant physical possession of the 3rd floor of property in August, 2015 and terminated his license after they found Mohd. Asif occupying the suit premises. Physical vacant possession of the property however could not be handed over to plaintiffs as defendant No.2 refused to vacate the premises notwithstanding termination of Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:23 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.15 / 23 license in his presence on 02.08.2015 and lodged false, bogus and frivolous complaint dated 19.08.2015 followed by suit for recovery of possession, damage/mesne profits filed by plaintiffs and institution of false and frivolous counter-claim on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
34. Defendant Mohd. Saleem in affidavit Ex.DW1/A has inter alia deposed about - (i) sale deed for total sale consideration Rs.3,60,000/- duly registered vide Registration No.11,102 entered in Book No. I, Volume No.13,924, pages 33 to 41 on 11.11.2010; (ii) peaceful vacant physical possession of premises delivered to plaintiffs who became absolute owners of the property; (iii) electricity meter installed in the name of Syed Tahir Ali; (iv) refund of Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited as security by Mohd. Asif at the time of vacating the premises in terms of rent agreement dated 16.12.2010 AND (v) Mohd. Asif having approached and requested defendant to accommodate him and his family in July 2015 was permitted to stay in the premises for a short period followed by termination of license by plaintiffs in August, 2015.
35. Testimony of DW1 Mohd. Saleem has remained uncontroverted in the absence of cross-examination by Mohd. Asif who during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has fairly admitted about - (i) application for restoration of electricity under Section 45(3) of Rent Control Act; (ii) statement of Mohd. Saleem recorded on 16.11.2015 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:28 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.16 / 23 who claimed to have sold out the property to Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali on 11.11.2010; (iii) order dated 22.12.2015 of Ld. ARC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi directing impleadment of Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali in petition bearing MU No. 16/15 titled Mohd. Asif vs. Saleem; (iv) order dated 03.02.2016 of Ld. ARC-2, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissing application under Section 45(3) of Delhi Rent Control Act; (v) order dated 11.05.2017 of Sh. Talwant Singh, the then Ld. Rent Control Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi affirming dismissal of application under Section 45(3) of Delhi Rent Control Act in the absence of landlord-tenant relationship AND (vi) order dated 22.05.2018 of Ld. ARC-2, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissing petition as withdrawn on the basis of statement of Advocate Sh. Yashpal Bharti for petitioner.
36. Advocate Ms. Jhuma Bose for defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem has adverted to rent agreement dated 16.12.2010 referred as Ex. DW2/2 read with reply dated 26.09.2015 referred as Ex. PW8/11 for drawing Court's attention to portion 'A' to 'B' wherein defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif has admitted refund of security amount Rs. 3,00,000/- at the time of vacating the premises.
37. Advocate Sh. Yashpal Bharti for defendant/counter-claimant, per contra, has vehemently urged landlord-tenant relationship by adverting to copies of rent agreements dated 16.12.2010, 09.03.2012 & 07.05.2014 referred as Ex. DW2/2 to Ex. Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:32 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.17 / 23 DW2/4. It is, however, relevant to record that defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem being permissive user/licensee after execution of registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 was neither owner/landlord nor authorized to let out the premises by plaintiffs who being owner had Electricity Meter bearing CA No.100236910 registered in the name of Syed Tahir Ali.
38. Finding: Issue No.5 is therefore decided against defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem and defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif on the basis of unrebutted testimony of DW1 Mohd. Saleem read with - (i) order dated 03.02.2016 of Ld. ARC-2, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissing application under Section 45(3) of Delhi Rent Control Act AND (ii) order dated 11.05.2017 of Sh. Talwant Singh, the then Ld. Rent Control Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi affirming dismissal of application in the absence of landlord-tenant relationship.
39. Issue No.6 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by jurisdiction under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in view of rent of the suit property is Rs.1500/- per month under tenancy of defendant no. 1? OPD-2
40. Plaintiffs Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali being registered owner have filed suit seeking recovery of possession of 3 rd floor comprising two rooms, kitchen with common bath and WC and also prayed for recovery of Rs.24,928/- with interest @ 18% per annum in addition to Rs.500/- per day as mesne profits from 29.09.2015 till restoration of vacant and physical Digitally possession of suit premises.
signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:38 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.18 / 23
41. Defendant/counter-claimant Mohd. Asif, on the other hand, has opposed plaintiffs' suit by claiming lawful tenancy of 3 rd floor of the property on the basis of rent agreements dated 16.12.2010, 09.03.2012 & 07.05.2014 executed by defendant No.1 Mohd. Saleem.
42. Finding: Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between plaintiffs and defendant No.2 Mohd. Asif whereas landlord-
tenant relationship between parties could not be established in view of order dated 03.02.2016 of Ld. ARC-2, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which was upheld vide order dated 11.05.2017 of Sh. Talwant Singh, the then Ld. Rent Control Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Issue No.6 is therefore decided against defendant No.2/counter-claimant Mohd. Asif.
43. Issue No.7 Whether the defendant no. 2 is beneficiary u/sec. 53A of Transfer of Property Act having purchased the suit property from defendant no. 1? OPD-2
44. It is the case of defendant/counter-claimant that Mohd.
Saleem having received Rs. 7,50,000/- towards sale price of 3rd floor did not appear before Sub Registrar on 23.09.2015 to execute sale deed of suit property and also failed to perform his part of agreement on one pretext or the other.
45. DW2 Mohd. Asif having relied upon - (i) copy of Receipt dated 10.09.2015 referred as Ex. DW2/5 AND (ii) copy of Digitally Receipt Book (B), Sub Registrar Office dated 23.09.2015 signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:43 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.19 / 23 (cash receipt) referred as Ex. DW2/7 has examined Mohd. Sajid and Mohd. Suhwaleen as DW3 and DW4 who have deposed about - (i) agreement to sell in respect of built-up 3rd floor of property No.2433, Gali Abdul Qadir, behind G.B. Road, Delhi- 110006 AND (ii) Rs. 7,50,000/- paid to defendant No.1 as full & final consideration amount of the property verified by Receipt signed and executed by defendant Mohd. Saleem in their presence.
46. However, no agreement to sell has been adduced in evidence whereas DW3 & DW4 upon being confronted with copy of Receipt dated 10.09.2015 have fairly conceded that document referred as Ex. DW2/5 does not bear their signature. Mere testimony of DW2 Mohd. Asif, DW3 Mohd. Sajid and DW4 Mohd. Suhwaleen in the absence of agreement to sell therefore does not inspire confidence.
47. Moreover, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with cases where possession of immovable property or any part thereof has been taken by the transferee in part performance of the contract AND Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 requires compulsory registration of document containing contracts for sale of immovable property which have been amended/inserted by the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amdt.) Act, 2001 by inserting Article 23A in Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:49 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.20 / 23
48. Aforesaid amendments deal with cases where possession of immovable property or any part thereof has been taken by the transferee in part performance of the contract. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dealing with part performance will however come to the aid of defendant/counter-claimant only in case where agreement to sell (in writing) in respect of immovable property executed upon Stamp Paper of the value equivalent to 90% of duty as provided under Article 23A of Schedule-I of the Stamp Act, 1899 is duly registered under Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908
49. Finding: Issue No.7 is therefore decided against defendant No.2/counter-claimant Mohd. Asif in the absence of written and registered agreement to sell executed in his favour.
50. Issue No.8 Whether counter claim is barred due to deficient court fees claiming title over the suit property? OPP/Plaintiff
51. Counter-claim for declaring registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 as illegal and ineffective has been opposed by plaintiffs by contending that defendant Mohd. Asif claiming title/ownership in the garb of counter-claim is bound to pay court fee on the valuation of counter-claim for the purpose of jurisdiction.
52. Mohd. Asif, on the other hand, has valued counter-claim at Rs. 200/- for relief of declaration and paid fixed Court fee Rs. Digitally signed by 20/-.
TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:54 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.21 / 23
53. Advocate Sh. Yashpal Bharti for counter-claimant has stoutly argued that plaintiffs are neither lawful and bonafide owner of suit property nor did they ever acquire physical possession of the property at any time whereas defendant Mohd. Asif being lawful tenant in the 3rd floor of property was inducted by Mohd. Saleem who held out and represented himself as owner of property No. 2433, Gali Abdul Qadir, behind G. B. Road, Delhi- 110006 and continued to occupy the property since execution of rent agreement dated 16.12.2010 referred as Ex. DW2/2.
54. Finding: Since defendant Mohd. Asif claiming lawful tenancy of 3rd floor of property has approached the Court seeking declaration without ancillary relief by filing fixed court fee under Article 17 of Schedule-II of the Court Fee Act, 1870 so Issue No.8 is decided in his favour and against plaintiffs.
55. Finally, it is also relevant to record that Mohd. Asif during cross-examination by Ld. counsel for plaintiffs could not explain electricity connection obtained in his name on the basis of forged rent agreement executed between brothers and feigned ignorance about Assessment Bill/Notice of Direct Theft dated 22.07.2016 referred as Ex. PW4/1.
56. Defendant Mohd. Asif being unauthorized occupant of the 3rd floor of property No. 2433, Gali Abdul Qadir, behind G.B. Road, Delhi- 110006 pursuant to legal notice dated 19.09.2015 is therefore not entitled to any relief. Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.04.22 15:15:58 +0530 CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.22 / 23
57. Counter-claim for declaring registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 executed by Mohd. Saleem in favour Syed Tahir Ali and Syed Nazim Ali as illegal, forged, fraudulent and ineffective is therefore dismissed.
58. There shall be no order as to cost.
59. Decree-sheet be prepared.
60. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
Pronounced in the Open Court 2026.04.22 15:16:04 on 18.04.2026 +0530 (Tarun Yogesh) District Judge-13 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS DJ 825/18 Mohd. Asif (Counter-Claimant) vs. Mohd. Saleem & Ors. Page No.23 / 23