Delhi District Court
Gulshan Khurana vs Manju Monga on 31 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAGUN SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE-12 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
_______________________________________________________
RCA DJ No. 119/24
CNR No. DLCT-01-012191-2024
MEMO OF PARTIES
Mr. Gulshan Khurana,
R/o. Shop No. 3517/11 & 3517/12,
Kumar Building, Qutub Road,
Sadar Bazar, Dehli-110006. .... Appellant
VERSUS
Mrs. Manju Monga,
W/o Sh. Rajender Monga,
R/o A-14, Church Compound,
Bajoria Road, Distt. Sahranpur - 2470041. ...Respondent
Date of filing of the Appeal : 09.08.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 09.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 31.10.2025
Decision : Dismissed.
RCA DJ No. 119/24
Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 1/9
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present appeal filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 96 read with Section 107 CPC, seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2024 passed by, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 3629/2017.
2. For the sake of clarity and consistency, the parties shall be referred to by their original status before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the appellant shall be referred to as the "defendant", and the respondent shall be referred to as the "plaintiff".
BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking ejectment of the defendant from the property bearing Shop Nos. 3517/11 and 3517/12, situated at the first floor of Kumar Building, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"), along with recovery of Rs. 40,500/- towards arrears of rent for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.10.2019, and mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises from the date of institution of the suit till recovery of possession, along with interest.
4. The plaintiff further sought an inquiry for determination of mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation from the date of filing till delivery of possession. Subsequently, vide statement dated 19.07.2024, the plaintiff sought amendment of the relief to claim rent @ Rs. 13,500/- per month from 01.08.2019 till realization.
RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 2/95. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property and the rent of Rs. 13,500/-, besides electricity and water charges was lastly paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff . The defendant allegedly remained irregular in payment of rent and failed to pay rent for August and September 2019. Consequently, a legal notice dated 19.09.2019 was issued terminating the tenancy. The notice was allegedly served upon the defendant on 25.09.2019, but the defendant failed to comply with the same.
DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
6. The defendant admitted the ownership of Plaintiff as well his tenancy under the plaintiff but disputed the rate of rent, stating that it was Rs 1,200/- per month for Shop No. 3517/11 and Rs. 1,800/- per month for Shop No. 3517/12. He contended that the suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as the tenancy was a statutory tenancy.
7. The defendant admitted receipt of the legal notice dated 19.09.2019 but alleged that upon discussion with the plaintiff, he was informed that the notice was issued due to a misunderstanding. He further alleged that he had spent over Rs. 1,00,000/- on repairs of the suit property in 2018.
8. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff and her husband had agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.10,00,000/- in 2016, and the defendant had to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards sale consideration and Rs. 3,500/- towards rent. He claimed that he had RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 3/9 been regularly transferring Rs. 13,500/- per month to the plaintiff's account. He further alleged that in 2018, when he was ready to pay the full sale consideration, the plaintiff refused to execute the sale documents. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
9. The Ld. Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 19.07.2024 which has been assailed before this Court.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
10. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment primarily on the following grounds:-
a. The Plaintiff failed to prove her ownership qua the suit property.
b. Insufficient evidence of rent amount: Other than Ex. PW-1/2 (statement of account), no document was placed on record to establish the rent as Rs. 13,500/-.
c. Absence of rent agreement: The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in 2001 but did not produce any rent agreement, rent receipt, or document to prove rent at Rs. 13,500/-.
d. Improbable rent figure: The Trial Court failed to appreciate the cross-examination dated 06.05.2014 wherein the defendant admitted having rented another shop in the same building, of similar size, for Rs 8,000/- per month. The plaintiff's claim of Rs. 13,500/- rent for the suit shops in 2001 is highly improbable.RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 4/9
e. Consistent payment of Rs 3,500/-: The defendant consistently paid Rs3,500/- per month (including electricity), yet the plaintiff wrongly alleged a rent revision from Rs12,000/- to Rs 13,500/- in July 2018 without any supporting document or evidence.
f. Erroneous inference by Trial Court: The Trial Court erred in holding that rent was reduced from Rs12,000/- to Rs 3,500/-, and that Rs. 13,500/- continued to be paid but partly to the plaintiff's brother. No evidence supports such finding.
g. Ignored binding precedent: The Ld. Trial Court overlooked the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sachin & Anr. vs. Jhabbu Lal & Anr., decided on 24.11.2016 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Pratibha Rani, which was relied upon by the appellant's counsel.
11. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of both parties. The Defendant did not file a written reply to the appeal but addressed oral arguments reiterating her stand before the Ld. Trial Court. It was further argued that the evidence affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant was beyond pleadings and liable to be disregarded.
JUDICIAL ANALYSIS - DETERMINATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL Ground 1: Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit property.
12. The contention that the plaintiff has failed to prove ownership of the suit property is wholly untenable. The defendant himself has admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Moreover, it is undisputed that the defendant was RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 5/9 inducted into the premises as a tenant and continued to make payments to the plaintiff. As per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the defendant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. Further , the defendant cannot approbate and reprobate by claiming both a denial of ownership and a purported agreement of sale executed between him and Plaintiff . This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Ground 2: Insufficient evidence of rent amount.
13. The defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to adequately prove the amount of rent, relying solely on Ex. PW-1/2 (statement of account). A careful perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the last rental amount of Rs. 13,500/- was being paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Per contra, the defendant has failed to adduce any credible evidence to contradict this record. The argument that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is insufficient is entirely baseless, particularly when the defendant himself has placed nothing on record to substantiate his claims. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Ground 3: Absence of a formal rent agreement.
14. The defendant argues that the absence of a written rent agreement undermines the plaintiff's claim. However, it is admitted that the tenancy was on a month-to-month basis, which is valid and enforceable even if oral. The plaintiff has proved payment of rent through a reliable statement of account. The defendant's claim of RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 6/9 paying Rs. 3,500/- as rent and Rs. 10,000/- as part of a sale consideration is unsupported by any credible evidence. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Ground 4: Alleged improbability of the rent figure.
15. The defendant contends that the rent of Rs. 13,500/- is improbable, citing that he rented another similar shop in the same building for Rs. 8,000/-. Such a comparison is wholly irrelevant. Each tenancy must be assessed on its own facts, and no evidence suggests that the rent for the suit property was unreasonable or inflated. Mere comparison with other premises cannot negate established payments supported by documentary evidence. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Ground 5: Consistent payment of Rs. 3,500/- including electricity.
16. The defendant claims that he consistently paid Rs. 3,500/- per month and an additional Rs. 10,000/- towards alleged sale consideration. The plea of execution of agreement to sell remains unsubstantiated. Perusal of the record reveals that the defendant made inconsistent statements at different stages. These contradictions significantly undermine the credibility of his evidence. The trial court, therefore, rightly relied on the plaintiff's consistent, contemporaneous documentary evidence. The defendant's attempt to introduce additional facts beyond pleadings further weakens his case. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 7/9Ground 6: Erroneous inference by Trial Court regarding rent payments
17. The defendant contends that the trial court wrongly inferred a reduction in rent from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- and that Rs. 13,500/- was partly paid to the plaintiff's brother. A careful examination of the trial court's judgment shows that no such adverse inference was made. No assumption or conjecture was employed, and the court's reasoning reflects a careful analysis of the evidence before it. The defendant's objection is therefore based on a misreading of the judgment. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Ground 7: Alleged Ignored Binding Precedent
18. The defendant contends that the trial court ignored the judgment of Sachin & Anr. v. Jhabbu Lal & Anr. ( Hon'ble Delhi High Court, 24.11.2016). That judgment involved an injunction granted in favour of parents against their children, holding that the appellants (children) had no ownership rights and were mere licensees. The present case, however, concerns a claim for eviction and recovery of rent arrears. The factual matrix, parties' relationships, and relief sought are entirely distinct. The trial court was therefore correct in not applying the said precedent. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
CONCLUSION ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 8/9
19. None of the grounds raised by the appellant/Defendant succeed. There is no justification to interfere with the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2024. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
20. The impugned judgment and decree dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is hereby affirmed.
21. A copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
22. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
23. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed by SHAGUN SHARMA SHAGUN Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.31
Announced in the open 15:00:04
+0530
Court on 31.10.2025
(SHAGUN SHARMA)
District Judge-12, Central Distt.
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
31.10.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 9 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SHAGUN SHAGUN SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.31 15:00:09 +0530 (SHAGUN SHARMA) District Judge-12, Central Distt.
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 31.10.2025 RCA DJ No. 119/24 Mr. Gulshan Khurana Vs. Mrs. Manju Monga Page No. 9/9