Delhi District Court
Sarvesh Mahajan vs Mr. Mohd. Asloof Klhan on 28 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI M JAIN : DISTRICT
JUDGE-05,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ 405/2021
DLSW010052982021
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Mr. Sarvesh Mahajan
S/o Late Sh. Yashpal Mahajan,
R/o B-1/419, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058.
2. Mr. Sandeep Mahajan
S/o Late Sh. Yashpal Mahajan,
R/o B-1/419, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058.
3. Mr. Mukul Mahajan
S/o Late Sh. Yashpal Mahajan,
R/o B-1/419, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058.
4. Mrs. Savita Mahajan
D/o Late Sh. Yashpal Mahajan,
R/o B-1/603, Janak Puri,
New Delhi - 110058 .............Plaintiffs
Versus
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 1 of 31
SHILPI Digitally signed
by SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2026.01.28
M JAIN 16:37:38 +0530
1. Mohd. Asloof Khan
M/s Hair World,
M-3/2, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-110018 ............Defendant
Date of Institution : 04.06.2021
Date of Arguments : 15.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.01.2026
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF RS.21,80,940/-
AND MESNE PROFITS
JUDGMENT
INDEX FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................3 ISSUES ....................7 EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES ....................8 SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ....................13 ISSUEWISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ..................18 CONCLUSION/RELIEF ..................27
1. Present suit for possession, recovery of Rs. 21,80,940/- and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff seeking following prayer:
(a) a decree of possession be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant, in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Property No. M-3, Basement, Mahajan Plaza, Opp. Kerala School, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018;
(b) a decree for a sum of Rs. 21,80,940/- (Rs. Twenty One Lakh Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Fourty Only) be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 2 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:37:43 +0530 Defendant together with future and pendente lite interest @ 12% till its realization;
(c) a decree of mesne profit @ Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. Eighty Thousand Only) per month together with future and pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant for the period till the Defendant handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the property to the Plaintiffs;
(d) costs of the suit be also awarded to the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant.
(e) any other further relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances be also granted in favour of Plaintiffs and against the Defendant.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The plaintiffs are the four co-owners of the property bearing No. M-3, Mahajan Plaza, opposite Kerala School, Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 110018, specifically the basement portion thereof measuring approximately 135 sq. mtrs. They inherited the property from their father, Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan, who died on 20.09.2016. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 have granted a Special Power of Attorney to Plaintiff No. 1 authorising him to institute and prosecute the present suit on their behalf.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, at the request of the defendant, Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan executed a Licence Deed dated 01.02.2000 granting a portion of the basement to the defendant at a monthly licence fee of ₹15,000/- plus maintenance CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 3 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:37:51 +0530 charges @ ₹1 per sq. ft. (as per Clause 16), with the licence fee agreed to increase by 10% annually (as per Clause 5). With effect from 01.03.2000, the entire basement was given to the defendant on monthly rent of ₹20,000/- plus maintenance, under similar terms and conditions. The rent was thereafter mutually increased as follows:
i. ₹27,000/- w.e.f. March 2011 ii. ₹28,000/- w.e.f. March 2012 iii. ₹29,000/- w.e.f. March 2013 iv. ₹30,000/- w.e.f. March 2014 v. ₹31,000/- w.e.f. March 2015 vi. ₹32,000/- w.e.f. March 2016
4. The defendant paid rent regularly to Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan till September 2016 (partly in cash and partly by cheque; the last payment during his lifetime being on 09.09.2016 for March 2016 rent @ ₹32,000/-). After the death of Shri Yashpal Mahajan, payments continued to Plaintiff No. 3 (Shri Mukul Mahajan) till 05.10.2018, which covered rent for February 2017 @ ₹32,000/-. Thereafter, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and maintenance from 01.03.2017 onwards despite reminders. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant had caused damage to the premises, reserving their right to claim damages separately.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 4 of 31
SHILPI Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2026.01.28
M JAIN 16:37:55 +0530
5. The plaintiffs terminated the licence/tenancy by legal notice dated 01.12.2020, which became effective from midnight of 31.12.2020 after expiry of 15 days. The defendant failed to vacate the premises or pay the arrears, and continues in unauthorised occupation. The plaintiffs calculated arrears of rent and maintenance from March 2017 to the date of institution of the suit at ₹21,80,940/-. They further claimed mesne profits @ ₹80,000/- per month from April 2021 onwards till delivery of possession, together with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
6. The defendant, in his written statement, vehemently denied the allegations made in the plaint. He contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of privity of contract between the parties and that no landlord-tenant relationship exists with the plaintiffs, who are strangers to him qua the suit property and have no locus standi to seek possession, arrears, or mesne profits. He asserted that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor entitled to sue in respect of the property.
7. The defendant pleaded that he has been in occupation of the basement at M-3/2, Vikaspuri, New Delhi since 1999, running his hair-cutting salon in the name and style of M/s Hair World thereon. He claimed to have taken the premises on monthly rent of ₹3,000/- with ₹5,00,000/- paid as security deposit, the tenancy being perpetual and not terminable. CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 5 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:37:59 +0530 He alleged that rent was paid to Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan, who issued receipts therefor. Subsequently, one Shri M.H. Mansukhani of M/s K.M. Capital claimed ownership and agreed to sell the property to the defendant for ₹45,00,000/-, out of which ₹20,00,000/- was paid, with the balance of ₹25,00,000/- ready for payment upon execution of the sale deed. On this basis, the defendant claimed to be in possession in his independent right as part-owner under the doctrine of part performance.
8. The defendant further submitted that the suit is an abuse of process of law, the plaint being a bundle of lies, and that the plaintiffs lack clean hands, having concealed material facts and made false declarations including regarding co-ownership, initial rent of ₹20,000/- p.m. with 10% increase and maintenance, payments post-death, default from 01.03.2017, termination w.e.f. 31.12.2020, and liability of ₹21,80,940/- or mesne profits @ ₹80,000/- p.m. He alleged that these false averments, supported by affidavits, constitute perjury.
9. He denied the existence of any licence deed or tenancy at the rates claimed by the plaintiffs, denied liability for ₹21,80,940/- or interest, and denied any cause of action. He contended that the suit is hit by Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is undervalued with deficient court fees and is liable to rejection under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. He prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 6 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:03 +0530
10. In para-wise reply, the defendant denied each material averment of the plaint, reiterated lack of locus standi of the plaintiffs, absence of landlord-tenant relationship, his independent possession, and the alleged agreement to sell, and maintained that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.
11. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant wherein he reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of his plaint and denied all the averments made in the written statement of defendant.
ISSUES :
12. From the pleadings of parties, vide order dt. 21.11.2022, following issues were framed:
i. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, as prayed? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits alongwith pendente lite and future interest, if so, at what rate and for what period?OPP.
iv. Relief.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 7 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:06 +0530 EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES
13. In support of his case, plaintiff examined four witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Sarvesh Mahajan, PW-2 Sh. Ajay Rathi, PW-3 Sh. Rajeev and PW-4 Ms. Rishika Khandelwal.
14. PW-1 Sh. Sarvesh Mahajan S/o Late Sh. Yashpal Mahajan, aged 57 about years R/o B-1/419, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. He has also relied upon the documents which are as follows:-
Sl. Particulars of Documents Exhibits/ No. Mark
1. Original SPA dt. 15.04.2021 Ex.PW1/1 (pages 12 to 14)
2. Copy of license deed dt. Ex.PW1/2 01.02.2000 (pages 15 and 17) (OSR)
3. Copy of license deed dt. Ex.PW1/3 01.03.2000 (pages 18 to 20) (OSR)
4. Copy of Bank account statement Mark-A of Late Sh. Yashpal Mahajan (de-
(pages 21 to 33) exhibited as
Ex.PW1/4)
5. Copy of Bank account statement Mark-B
of Mukul Mahajan (pages 34 and (de-
35) exhibited as
Ex.PW1/5)
6. Details of rent paid by defendant Ex.PW1/6
till date (page 36 to 39)
7. Details of pending rent from Ex.PW1/7
defendant (page 40 to 41)
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 8 of 31
SHILPI Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28
16:38:11 +0530
15. The cross-examination of PW-1 elicited the following deposition:
a) PW-1 stated that he is 57 years old, a Chartered Accountant since 1991, and has been granted SPA (Ex.PW1/1) by his brothers and sister (he has no other siblings). He received the original SPA already executed and does not remember the exact date or place of execution/notarization, but confirmed his signatures thereon;
b) The suit property is the basement in a 135 sq. mtr.
building in M-3 Block, Vikaspuri. The defendant has been in possession since 2000 as a tenant under the two licence deeds (Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3). He does not remember if the property was previously given on rent/lease before the defendant;
c) He admitted that no document showing ownership of the suit property has been exhibited on record so far, but stated that he has documents of ownership and brought the original Licence Deed dated 01.02.2000 (Ex.PW1/2) to court;
d) Rent under Ex.PW1/2 was payable in cash, cheque, or both, to his father Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan till 2016, and thereafter to his brother Shri Mukul Mahajan (co- owner);
e) His father's ITRs (prepared by PW-1's office) and Shri Mukul Mahajan's ITRs duly showed the rent received from the defendant as per statement Ex.PW1/6. The statement Ex.PW1/6 was prepared by him based on bank statements and ITRs (not authorised by any government authority);
f) He denied suggestions that he is not the absolute owner (asserting ownership since 1997/1999 - matter of record), that there was pending litigation qua the property (matter of record), and that he deliberately suppressed facts regarding a prior case titled M.H. Mansukhani v.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 9 of 31 Digitally signed SHILPI byJAINSHILPI M M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:16 +0530 Sunil Guglani, Yashpal Mahajan, Babu Khan decided at Tis Hazari Courts;
g) He denied removing any air-conditioners of the defendant, having any quarrel/scuffle, threatening the defendant, or stopping basic amenities. He stated he is a law-abiding citizen and would never do so;
h) He denied deposing falsely or that the defendant owes nothing.
16. PW-2 Sh. Ajay Rathi S/o Sh. K S Rathi, Notice Server, Income Tax Department, Ward no. 49(1), Room no. 1404, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110002 submits that he is summoned witness and he is presently posted as Notice Server at above mentioned department. His Authorization letter is Ex.PW2/1. He has brought the summoned record i.e. Income Tax returns of Mr. Mukul Mahajan for the Assessment Year 2016- 2017 to 2019-2020 and certified copy of the same is Ex.PW2/2 (colly.). PW2 cross-examined by defendant and discharged.
17. PW-3 Shri Rajeev Tax Assistant, Income Tax Department, Ward No. 51(1), E-2 Block, 14th Floor, Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110002 examined as summoned witness. He produced Authorization letter Ex.PW3/1 Summoned record:
Income Tax Returns of Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan for AY 2015- 2016 (certified copy) as Ex.PW3/2 (colly.) PW3 cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defendant and discharge.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 10 of 31 Digitally signed SHILPI byJAINSHILPI M M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:20 +0530
18. PW-4 Ms. Rishika Khandelwal Assistant Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Janak Puri Branch, New Delhi - 110058 examined as summoned witness and produced:
a) Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act and u/s 2A Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 regarding bank account of Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan - Ex.PW4/1 (colly.)
b) Bank account statement of Shri Yashpal Mahajan from 01.08.2011 to 01.10.2017 (certified copy) - Ex.PW4/2 (colly.)
c) Certificate u/s 65B and u/s 2A regarding bank account of Shri Mukul Mahajan - Ex.PW4/3 (colly.)
d) Bank account statement of Shri Mukul Mahajan from 01.10.2016 to 01.11.2018 (certified copy) - Ex.PW4/4 (colly.)
19. Perusal of record reveals that after examination of PW4, PE stand closed by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter, matter was fixed for DE.
20. The defendant examined himself as sole witness i.e. DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.DW1/A), bearing his signatures at points A and B.
21. DW-1 relied upon Copy of Aadhaar card i.e. Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) while Copy of notice (mentioned in affidavit) is de-exhibited as not on record.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 11 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:24 +0530
22. The cross-examination of DW-1 elicited the following deposition:
a) DW-1 stated he has been in occupation of the suit property since 17.04.1999. Shri Yashpal Mahajan told him that one Mansukhani is the owner, but he never saw any ownership document in Mansukhani's favour;
b) He paid rent to Shri Yashpal Mahajan till 2016 (cheque and cash), and after 2016 to Shri Mukul Mahajan (cheque and cash) till 2018. After 2018, he did not pay rent due to lockdown. Last payment to Shri Mukul Mahajan was in 2018 @ ₹12,000/- p.m. by cheque. Shri Mukul Mahajan asked for cash thereafter and refused cheques. He never paid rent to anyone except Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan and Shri Mukul Mahajan;
c) Confronted with Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 (OSR);
admitted that all signatures at Point A on both documents are his;
d) He has no document to show payment of ₹20 lakhs to Shri Yashpal Mahajan (said Shri Yashpal used to note it in his diary);
e) Regarding the alleged sale deed after payment of ₹25 lakhs balance, he stated that after settlement, Shri Mansukhani and Shri Sunil Guglani were to execute the sale deed. There was litigation between Shri Yashpal Mahajan, Shri Mansukhani, Shri Sunil Guglani, and Babu Khan, in which a settlement was arrived at;
f) No receipt for ₹5 lakhs security deposit paid to Shri Yashpal Mahajan;
g) Confronted with legal notice dated 01.12.2020 along with postal receipt Ex.DW1/P1 colly. DW1 stated that he does not know if he received it, but admitted the address at Point A is correct;
h) No receipt for rent paid to Shri Mukul Mahajan from 2016-2018 (said no receipts issued; earlier by cheque, later cash);
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 12 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:28 +0530
i) Admitted: "I am not the owner of the suit property as I have been paying rent to the plaintiff."
j) The entrance to the basement is via stairs from the ground floor and after entering, there is a toilet;
k) Confronted with site plan of the suit property Ex.DW1/P-2. DW1 further admitted it;
l) Does not know the market rent of the suit property. Denied that it can fetch ₹80,000/- p.m., that he has not paid rent since 01.03.2017, that he is liable for interest on arrears, that he owes ₹21,80,940/-, that he made no payments of ₹20 lakhs or otherwise, that he is in unauthorised occupation, and that he is deposing falsely.
23. After examination of DW-1, defendant's evidence (DE) was closed. The matter was thereafter fixed for final arguments.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:
24. The plaintiffs, through their counsel, submitted comprehensive written final arguments emphasizing the merits of their case for possession, recovery of arrears, and mesne profits. They contended that the suit was filed on the basis of a valid tenancy created in favor of the defendant vide two written Licence Deeds dated 01.02.2000 and 01.03.2000, executed by their late father, Shri Yashpal Mahajan. These deeds clearly established the defendant as a licensee/tenant in the entire basement of the suit property at an initial monthly rent of ₹20,000/- (effective from March 2000), inclusive of a 10% annual escalation clause and maintenance charges at ₹1 per sq. ft.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 13 of 31
SHILPI Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2026.01.28
M JAIN 16:38:33 +0530
The plaintiffs highlighted that the tenancy had been duly terminated by a legal notice dated 01.12.2020, served via speed post, which demanded vacation of the premises by 31.12.2020 and payment of outstanding arrears. Despite service, the defendant neither vacated nor cleared the dues, rendering him an unauthorized occupant liable for eviction and damages.
25. In response to the defendant's written statement, the plaintiffs pointed out the inherent contradictions in the defense as on one hand, the defendant admitted the tenancy and payments to the plaintiffs' family until 2018 and on the other, he falsely claimed independent ownership through an alleged agreement to sell with a third party (M/s K.M. Capital). The plaintiffs argued that such pleas were untenable, as no evidence supported the defendant's claims of perpetual tenancy at ₹3,000/- per month or part performance under an unproven sale agreement. They reaffirmed their replication to the written statement, denying all adverse averments and reiterating the plaint's contents. The plaintiffs underscored that the issues framed on 21.11.2022 entitlement to possession, recovery of ₹21,80,940/-, and mesne profits were interconnected and should be decided collectively in their favor.
26. To substantiate their case, the plaintiffs relied heavily on the evidence led during trial. The plaintiffs noted that PW-1's cross-examination yielded nothing material to discredit CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 14 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:37 +0530 their claims, as the defendant failed to challenge the authenticity of the deeds or ledgers effectively. Additionally, summoned witnesses PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 from the Income Tax Department and Indian Overseas Bank produced certified ITRs and bank statements, which corroborated the rent receipts and tax declarations, further solidifying the landlord-tenant relationship.
27. The plaintiffs argued that the ingredients for a suit of ejectment were fully met: (i) an admitted landlord-tenant relationship, as evidenced by the defendant's cross-examination admissions (e.g., paying rent to Shri Yashpal Mahajan and then Shri Mukul Mahajan until 2018); (ii) the tenancy being unprotected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, since the rent exceeded ₹3,500/- per month (admitted at ₹12,000/- by the defendant in cross-examination, but documented at ₹20,000/- onwards); (iii) no subsisting registered lease post-termination; and (iv) valid termination via the 01.12.2020 notice, whose service was presumed under relevant statutory provisions. They cited judicial precedents like Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) 2 SCC 728 and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) (2011 SCC OnLine Del 1515) to assert that the suit itself served as notice of termination.
28. On the recovery of ₹21,80,940/-, the plaintiffs submitted that this amount represented arrears from March 2017 CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 15 of 31 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:40 +0530 to April 2021, calculated at the escalated rent rate (₹32,000/- base with 10% annual increases), plus maintenance and 12% interest on defaults. The ledgers (Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7) were unchallenged, and the defendant's admission of non-payment post-2018 reinforced the claim. They clarified that the defendant's partial payments i.e. ₹12,000/- via cheque were insufficient, as the balance was paid in cash, and the total liability aligned with the deeds' terms.
29. Regarding mesne profits at ₹80,000/- per month from April 2021 onwards (with 12% pendente lite and future interest), the plaintiffs argued that this rate reflected the prevailing market value for similar basements in Vikaspuri, given the property's location opposite Kerala School and its size (135 sq. mtrs.). They contended that the claim remained unrebutted, with no cross-examination on market rates, entitling them to this relief. In conclusion, the plaintiffs urged the Court to decree possession alongwith full arrears with interest, mesne profits, and costs, emphasizing the defendant's mala fide conduct and failure to produce any counter-evidence.
30. Per contra, the defendant did not file written final arguments, as confirmed from the court record and noted by the Reader. However, during the course of the trial and in his written statement, the defendant, through his counsel, vehemently opposed the suit on multiple grounds. He argued that the suit was CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 16 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:44 +0530 not maintainable due to the absence of privity of contract with the plaintiffs, denying any landlord-tenant relationship and estopping the plaintiffs from seeking possession or damages. He contended that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi as owners, labeling them as strangers to the property and accusing them of abusing the court process with a fabricated narrative.
31. Shifting to his alternative plea, the defendant asserted that Shri M.H. Mansukhani (M/s K.M. Capital) approached him as the true owner and agreed to sell the property for ₹45 lakhs, with ₹20 lakhs advanced, entitling him to protection under part performance (Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act). He denied any arrears, claiming post-2016 cheques were "financial aid," not rent, and refuted the termination notice's validity.
32. Surprisingly, when the matter listed for judgment today, Ld. Counsel for defendant appeared through VC in morning session and submitted that he is ready to vacate and hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff in case plaintiff forego the claim for arrears of rent. However, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff vehemently objected the same and requested this Court to pronounce judgment on merit.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 17 of 31 Digitally signed by SHILPI M SHILPI JAIN M JAIN Date:
2026.01.28 16:38:48 +0530 ISSUE-WISE ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
Issue No. 1: Whether the Plaintiffs are Entitled to Recovery of Possession of the Suit Premises, as Prayed? (Onus on Plaintiffs)
33. In addressing this issue, the Court carefully examined the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties. The plaintiffs' claim for possession is predicated on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, which they assert originated from two Licence Deeds executed in 2000 by their late father, Shri Yashpal Mahajan, with the defendant. The first deed dated 01.02.2000 granted a portion of the basement at a monthly licence fee of ₹15,000/- plus maintenance charges at ₹1 per sq. ft., with a 10% annual escalation clause. Subsequently, effective from 01.03.2000, the entire basement was licensed to the defendant at ₹20,000/- per month under similar terms. These documents were exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 (OSR), and during cross-examination, the defendant (as DW-1) unequivocally admitted his signatures on both deeds at Point A, thereby confirming his induction as a tenant/licensee.
34. The plaintiffs further demonstrated their ownership through inheritance from their father, who died intestate on 20.09.2016, making them co-owners under Hindu Succession laws. Plaintiff No. 1 produced the Special Power of Attorney (Ex.PW1/1) executed by the other plaintiffs, authorizing him to pursue the suit. Bank statements i.e. Ex.PW4/2 and Ex.PW4/4 and Income Tax Returns i.e. Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW3/2 CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 18 of 31 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:38:52 +0530 corroborated regular rent payments from the defendant to the late father until 2016 and thereafter to Plaintiff No. 3 (Shri Mukul Mahajan) until 2018. The defendant, in his written statement, initially denied any privity of contract with the plaintiffs and claimed possession under an alleged perpetual tenancy at ₹3,000/- per month with ₹5 lakhs as security. However, this defense crumbled during evidence, as the defendant failed to produce any supporting documents, such as rent receipts, security deposit acknowledgments, or evidence of perpetual tenancy.
35. Moreover, the defendant introduced a contradictory plea claiming part ownership based on an alleged agreement to sell with M/s K.M. Capital (through Shri M.H. Mansukhani) for ₹45 lakhs, with ₹20 lakhs purportedly paid. No agreement to sell, payment receipts, or corroborative evidence was adduced to substantiate this claim under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This Court also noted the defendant's cross- examination admissions such as paying rent to the plaintiffs' family until 2018 and stating, "I am not the owner of the suit property as I have been paying rent to the plaintiff " estop him under Section 122 of the BSA1 from denying the plaintiffs' title. The tenancy was terminated via a legal notice dated 01.12.2020 i.e. Ex.DW1/P1 colly, whose service is presumed under Section 1 Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession.
122. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 19 of 31
SHILPI Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28
16:38:56 +0530
27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 119 of the BSA2, given the defendant's admission of the address's correctness.
36. The suit premises with rent exceeding ₹3,500/- per month (as admitted and documented), fall outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. No subsisting registered lease exists post-termination. Thus, all ingredients for eviction landlord-tenant relationship, unprotected tenancy, termination, and failure to vacate are satisfied. The issue is decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the Plaintiffs are Entitled to Recovery of the Suit Amount of ₹21,80,940/-, as Prayed? (Onus on Plaintiffs) 2 Court may presume existence of certain facts.
119. (1) The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations.
The Court may presume that-- (a) a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon, after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession; (b) an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars; (c) a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration; (d) a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence; (e) judicial and official acts have been regularly performed; (f) the common course of business has been followed in particular cases; (g) evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; (h) if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;
(i) when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged. (2) The Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it:-- (i) as to Illustration (a)--a shop-keeper has in his bill a marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business; (ii) as to Illustration (b)--A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a man's death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself; (iii) as to Illustration (b)--a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable; (iv) as to Illustration (c)--A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person, completely under A's influence; (v) as to Illustration (d)--it is proved that a river ran in a certain course five years ago, but it is known that there have been floods since that time which might change its course; (vi) as to Illustration (e)--a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances; (vii) as to Illustration (f)
--the question is, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances; (viii) as to Illustration (g)--a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family; (ix) as to Illustration (h)--a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked; (x) as to Illustration (i)--a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 20 of 31
SHILPI Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2026.01.28
M JAIN 16:39:00 +0530
37. This issue pertains to the plaintiffs' claim for arrears of rent, maintenance, and interest totaling ₹21,80,940/-. The plaintiffs provided detailed ledgers, showing rent escalations from ₹20,000/- in 2000 to ₹32,000/- by March 2016, with further 10% annual increases thereafter. The last payment was ₹32,000/- on 05.10.2018 towards February 2017 rent, leaving arrears from March 2017 onwards. The calculation includes base rent, maintenance and 12% simple interest on defaults, aggregating to the claimed amount over 50 months up to April 2021.
38. The defendant, while admitting payments until 2018, claimed the rate was only ₹12,000/- per month (cheque portion), but produced no receipts or counter-ledgers to dispute the escalation clause in the admitted deeds. His plea of "financial aid" instead of rent is untenable, as it contradicts his own admissions of tenancy. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of present case and material placed on record, this Court is of the view that plaintiff successfully discharge the onus of rent @ Rs. 32,000/- per month w.e.f. March, 2017.
39. However, notwithstanding the above documentary and oral evidence supporting the existence of default and the quantum of rent escalation, this Court is bound to consider the CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 21 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:08 +0530 plea of limitation raised implicitly by the facts and applicable law.
40. The plaintiffs have not provided any plausible explanation for their prolonged silence and inaction in pursuing the arrears from March 2017 until the institution of the suit in June 2021 a delay of over four years. No evidence was led to justify this dormancy, such as ongoing negotiations, family relations, or extenuating circumstances post the father's demise in 2016. Such unexplained delay raises concerns of laches, potentially indicating waiver or acquiescence, though not sufficient to bar the entire claim given the admitted tenancy.
41. Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963 3 provides that the period of limitation for a suit for arrears of rent is three years from the date when the arrears become due. The present suit was instituted on 04.06.2021. Accordingly, the claim for arrears of rent accruing prior to 04.06.2018 is barred by limitation and cannot be recovered in this suit. Only arrears from 04.06.2018 onwards up to the date of filing are recoverable.
3 Description of suits is For arrears of rent. Period of Limitation is Three years. Time from which period begins to run is Where the arrears become due.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 22 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:11 +0530
42. Furthermore, while the Licence Deeds Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 provide for an initial 10% annual escalation, no documentary evidence such as written agreements, correspondence, or receipts was produced to substantiate mutual consent for increases beyond ₹32,000/- after March 2017. The last admitted and proved rent rate is ₹32,000/- per month (as per the payment on 05.10.2018). In the absence of proof for further escalations, the Court holds the rent fixed at ₹32,000/- per month for the recoverable period.
43. On maintenance charges, Clause 16 of the Licence Deeds expressly stipulates ₹1 per sq. ft. per month. However, no separate documentary evidence such as specific receipts, invoices, or quantified breakdowns in the bank statements or ITRs was adduced to substantiate the exact amounts claimed or their inclusion in the rent ledger (Ex.PW1/7). The ledgers primarily reflect rent escalations without explicit segregation of maintenance. In the absence of clear, corroborative documents proving the quantum and payment defaults for maintenance independently, this portion of the claim cannot be decreed.
44. The claim for pre-suit interest @ 12% per annum on defaults lacks any contractual basis in the exhibited Deeds or other documents. No clause mandates interest on arrears, CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 23 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:17 +0530 and the plaintiffs led no evidence of prior demands at this rate. Accordingly, pre-suit interest is denied in toto. Interest, if any, shall be limited to pendente lite and future under Section 34 CPC at a reasonable rate.
45. In view of the above, the arrears computation in Ex.PW1/7 is accepted only partially i.e. fixed rent @ ₹32,000/- per month for 31 months (approx) from 04.06.2018 to 01.01.2021 i.e. 30 days from date of service of legal notice. No pre-suit interest is added.
46. The issue is decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs. A money decree for ₹9,92,000/- (Rupees Nine lakh Ninety Two thousand only) is passed towards recoverable arrears of rent. The plaintiffs shall be entitled only to pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit (04.06.2021) till realization.
Issue No. 3: Whether the Plaintiffs are also Entitled to Mesne Profits along with Pendente Lite and Future Interest; If So, at What Rate and for What Period? (Onus on Plaintiffs).
47. Onus of above issue is upon plaintiff but, no material placed on record to prove such damages. At this juncture, it would be imperative to refer to Section 2(12) of the CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 24 of 31 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:28 +0530 CPC, which defines mesne profits and also to Order XX Rule 12 CPC, which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Court while dealing with a claim for grant of mesne profits.
48. Section 2(12) CPC provides that:
"mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession;
49. Order XX Rule 12 CPC provides that, '12. Decree for possession and mesne profits.-- (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree--
(a) for the possession of the property;
(b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent. (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits;
(c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until--
(i) the delivery of possession to the decree- holder,
(ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment- debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or
(iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever, event first occurs.
(2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 25 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:37 +0530 mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry.'
50. Thus, mesne profits, as defined under Section 2(12) of the CPC, represent profits that a person in wrongful possession might reasonably have received, including interest but excluding improvements. Order XX Rule 12 CPC empowers the Court to decree such profits or direct an inquiry. The plaintiffs claimed mesne profits at ₹80,000/- per month from April 2021 onwards, asserting this as the market rate for similar basements in Vikaspuri.
51. However, no substantive evidence such as expert valuation, comparable rent deeds, circle rates, or market surveys was adduced to justify this rate. PW-1's affidavit merely reiterated the claim without corroboration, and no cross-examination of the defendant elicited admissions on market value. The defendant's suggestion that the premises could not fetch ₹80,000/- went unrebutted. While the Court acknowledges the defendant's unauthorized occupation post- termination (from January 2021), entitling the plaintiffs to compensation for wrongful use, the absence of proof precludes a decree at the claimed rate or an inquiry under Order XX Rule
12. CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 26 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:41 +0530
52. In equity, considering the last agreed rent of ₹32,000/-, the locality, inflation, and the defendant's prolonged default, the Court awards lump-sum unauthorized use and occupation charges @32,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2021 till date of actual possession. This issue is partly decided in favor of the plaintiffs as modified.
CONCLUSION / RELIEF:
53. After careful consideration of the pleadings, the evidence led by both parties, the cross-examinations, and the submissions made, the Court records the following conclusions:
1. The relationship of landlord and tenant (or licensor and licensee) between the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs (Late Shri Yashpal Mahajan) and the defendant, and subsequently between the plaintiffs and the defendant, stands fully established. This is primarily proved by:
(a) The two Licence Deeds dated 01.02.2000 and 01.03.2000 (Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3), on which the defendant (DW-1) admitted his signatures during cross-examination.
(b)The consistent payments of rent as corroborated by bank statements and Income Tax Returns produced through PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4.
(c) The DW1's own admission in cross-examination that he paid rent to the plaintiffs' family members CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 27 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:45 +0530 and that "I am not the owner of the suit property as I have been paying rent to the plaintiff."
(d)By virtue of Section 122 of the BSA, 2023 the defendant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord(s).
2. The defendant's defence in the written statement i.e. perpetual tenancy at ₹3,000/- per month with ₹5 lakhs security, and possession in his independent right as part- owner under an alleged agreement to sell with M/s K.M. Capital for ₹45 lakhs (wherein ₹20 lakhs allegedly paid) remain wholly unsubstantiated. No agreement to sell, receipt of advance payment, receipt for security deposit, or any other document was produced in support. These assertions are further belied by the defendant's own admissions regarding payment of rent at higher rates and signatures on the 2000 deeds.
3. The tenancy/licence was validly terminated by the legal notice dated 01.12.2020 whose service is presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Section 119 of the BSA, 2023, especially since the defendant admitted the correctness of the address mentioned therein. The defendant has remained in unauthorised occupation since January 2021.
4. The suit premises with rent admittedly exceeding ₹3,500/- per month (documented at ₹20,000/- and escalated to ₹32,000/-), the tenancy is not protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. There is no subsisting registered lease agreement post-termination.
5. The plaintiffs have proved their entitlement to arrears of rent up to the date of institution of the suit, but only to the extent not barred by limitation, at a fixed rent of ₹32,000/- per month. This amount is supported by the CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 28 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:48 +0530 partially accepted rent ledgers (Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7), bank entries showing last payment on 05.10.2018 for February 2017 rent. However, the defendant failed to produce any counter-calculation, receipt, or evidence of payment beyond February 2017. However, no pre-suit interest is allowed due to absence of contractual basis or documentary proof.
6. Regarding mesne profits @ ₹80,000/- per month claimed from April 2021 onwards, the plaintiffs have not placed on record any reliable evidence such as market rent comparables, expert valuation, circle rates, or local rent instances to substantiate the said rate. In the absence of such material, a decree at the prayed rate or a direction for detailed enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC is not warranted. However, considering the character of the premises, the locality, inflation, and the defendant's prolonged default, the Court deems it appropriate to award monthly unauthorised use and occupation charges @ ₹32,000/- per month w.e.f. 01 st Jan 2021 (i.e. after one month of issuance of legal notice) till date of possession
7. The plaintiffs are also entitled to pendente lite and future interest @6% per annum on the money decree, and to a decree of permanent injunction to protect the property from alienation or third-party encumbrance during the pendency of vacation.
54. In the result, the suit is decreed in the following terms:
a) A decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in respect of CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 29 of 31 Digitally signed SHILPI byJAINSHILPI M M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 16:39:52 +0530 the entire basement portion of property bearing No. M-3, Mahajan Plaza, opposite Kerala School, Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 110018 (as demarcated in red colour in the site plan Ex.DW1/P-2). The defendant is directed to hand over peaceful, vacant, and physical possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this judgment.
b) A money decree for ₹9,92,000/- (Rupees Nine lakh Ninety Two thousand only) is passed towards recoverable arrears of rent w.e.f.
04.06.2018 to 01.01.2021. The plaintiffs shall be entitled only to pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit (04.06.2021) till realization.
c) Decree of monthly unauthorised use and occupation charges @ ₹32,000/- per month w.e.f. 01st Jan 2021 till actual date of possession alongwith pendente lite and future interest @6% per annum on the money decree from due date till its actual realization is passed in favour of plaintiff.
d) A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, his agents, servants, family members, assigns, or anyone claiming through or under him, restraining them from creating any third-party interest in the suit premises or from parting with, alienating, or otherwise dealing with the possession thereof in any manner whatsoever.
e) Parties shall bear their own costs.
CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 30 of 31
SHILPI Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28
16:39:55 +0530
55. In case of failure to vacate suit property within the 3 months, the defendant shall be liable to pay penalty @ Rs. 3000/- per month over and above use and occupation charges @ Rs. 32,000/- per month from the date of expiry of three months till the date actual possession is handed over.
56. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
57. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 28.01.2026.
(SHILPI M JAIN) District Judge-05, South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi CS No. 405/21 Sarvesh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Mohd. Asloof Khan Page no. 31 of 31 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2026.01.28 M JAIN 16:39:59 +0530