Delhi District Court
Dev Prakash Sharma vs Jai Singh on 17 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH PARIHAR
ACJ-CUM-ARC (NORTH), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
CS No. 1127/2019.
CNR No. DLNT030021162017.
1. Dev Prakash Sharma
S/o Late Satya Vir Sharma
R/o D-202, Valley Apartment
Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi
2. Sneh Lata
D/o Sh. Shiv Kumar
R/o Room No. 14, Block No. 11
Trainees Hostel No. 1
Sector-3, Bokaro Jharkhand
Both currently residing at:
Flat No. 404, Annapurna Tower
Kaushambi Ghaziabad-201010 ... Plaintiffs
Versus
Jai Singh
S/o Sh. Maha Singh
R/o A-56, Block A
Badli Extension, Delhi
Currently residing at:
Flat No. B-9/65, Sector-18
Rohini, Delhi ... Defendant
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
CS No. 1127/2019. SINGH
Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh PARIHAR
Page 1 of 16
Date: 2025.07.17
PARIHAR 16:02:02 +0530
Date of Institution : 16.10.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 27.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 17.07.2025
SUIT FOR EVICTION AND MESNE PROFITS
1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for eviction and mesne prof-
its.
2. Brief facts as alleged in the plaint and documents filed by the
plaintiffs are that plaintiffs are joint owner of Flat No. B-9/65,
Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit prop-
erty') having purchased the same from one Ms. Salochna Devi
on 22.04.2016 vide registered Sale Deed registered via registra-
tion no. 214, Book No. 8, Volume 8 on pages 154 to 160 dated
30.04.2015. It is averred that defendant was inducted as a tenant
in the suit property at a monthly rent of ₹ 8,000/- on 05.08.2016
for a period of eleven months vide registered Rent Agreement
and an amount of ₹ 16,000/- was paid by defendant as refund-
able security deposit. It is averred that the rent agreement ex-
pired on 04.07.2017 by afflux of time whereafter the plaintiffs
required the suit property and as such, asked the defendant to va-
cate the suit property but the defendant failed to vacate the same.
The plaintiffs requires the suit property bonafidely for their self
use and want to shift in the same. Plaintiffs lodged a police com-
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh Page 2 of 16 PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:02:13 +0530
plaint dated 04.09.2017 in PS Samaypur Badli and also issued a
Legal notice dated 06.09.2017 to the defendant u/s 106 of Trans-
fer of Property Act 1882 (herein after referred as TPA) but the
same did not yield any result. It is averred that as per rent agree-
ment dated 05.08.2016, in case the defendant does not vacate or
handover the physical possession of suit property to the plaintiff
a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- per day will be imposed upon the defen-
dant. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3. Upon service, defendant appeared and filed written statement
stating therein that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit prop-
erty on 05.08.2016 and on 10.08.2016, registered rent deed was
executed between the plaintiff and defendant. It is further stated
that at the time of execution of rent deed, a sum of ₹ 16,000/-
was paid by the defendant as refundable security deposit to the
plaintiff.
4. It is averred that the relationship between plaintiffs and defen-
dant became cordial and they started visiting the defendant very
frequently. On one such occasion, plaintiffs expressed that they
had taken a home loan upon the suit property from ICICI Bank
and proposed to sell the property. Since the defendant was plan-
ning to purchase a flat, he agreed to purchase and plaintiffs sent
an official Sh. Pardeep from ICICI Bank to the defendant who
confirmed the loan liability of the plaintiffs qua the suit prop-
erty. It is averred that after negotiations, the total sale considera-
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh Page 3 of 16 PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:02:19 +0530
tion price for suit property was agreed to ₹ 42 lacs on
25.07.2017 and it was agreed that defendant shall pay earnest
money of ₹ 5 lacs. The defendant paid an amount of ₹
1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs on 20.08.2017 after withdrawing the
same from the bank accounts of his daughter and himself. It is
stated that it was agreed that the plaintiffs shall pay the balance
earnest money of ₹ 3,50,000/- and thereafter the plaintiffs shall
execute sale documents whereafter balance consideration
amount shall be paid. It is averred that the defendant made sev-
eral requests to the plaintiffs to accept the balance earnest
money but the plaintiffs avoided the same on one pretext or the
other which raised a doubt in the mind of defendant. On
29.08.2017, the plaintiffs stated that after discussing with their
family members, now they do not want to sell the flat to defen-
dant and on being asked by the defendant for return of part
earnest money of ₹ 1,50,000/-, it was mutually agreed that till
repayment of ₹ 1,50,000/- by the plaintiffs, the defendant shall
continue as a tenant in the suit property and will pay rent at the
rate of ₹ 2,000/- per month to plaintiff. It is averred that conse-
quently, the defendant paid agreed rent of ₹ 2,000/- for the
month of September 2017 by depositing the same in the account
of plaintiff no. 2 on 25.09.2017. On receipt of legal notice, the
defendant approached the plaintiffs but the plaintiff flatly re-
fused to return the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- and denied the sale
proposal and asked the defendant to vacate the suit property.
Therefore, left with no other option, defendant filed a civil suit
Digitally signed
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
Page 4 of 16 PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:02:24 +0530
for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. It is averred that
since the rent of the suit property is ₹ 2,000/-, the case is
squarely covered under Delhi Rent Control Act and hence, the
present suit is barred under DRC Act and is liable to be dis-
missed.
5. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on
07.02.2018:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction, as
prayed for ? (OPP)
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profits, if
so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
(3) Relief.
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence. In order to prove its
case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He filed his evidence
by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the documents
i.e.
S. No. Description Marking
1 Adhar Card Ex. PW1/1
Copy of registered sale
2 Mark A
deed in favour of plaintiff
Copy of registered rent
3 Ex. PW1/3
deed
Digitally signed by
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh
AJAY
Page 5 of 16 AJAY SINGH
SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2025.07.17
PARIHAR 16:02:31 +0530
Legal notice and postal
4 Ex. PW1/4
receipt
5 Copy of police complaint Ex. PW1/5
6 Copy of electricity bill Mark B
7 Site plan Ex. PW1/7
7.
The witness was duly cross examined on behalf of defendant.
8. Sh. Ashok Kumar Nagpal was examined as PW2 who tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. He was also cross
examined on behalf of the defendant.
9. No other witness was sought to be summoned or examined by
the plaintiffs. Accordingly, plaintiff's evidence was closed on
09.01.2019.
10. In defence, defendant stepped into witness box as DW1 and ten-
dered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. He relied
upon Rent Deed Ex. DW1/1 and copy of passbook of daughter
Ex. DW1/2. He was cross examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh SINGH
Page 6 of 16 Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:02:55 +0530
11. Ms. Ravina, daughter of defendant was examined as DW2 who
tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A and relied
upon documents already Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2.
12. No other witness was examined and DE was closed on
15.12.2022.
13. Both the sides have advanced final arguments.
14. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff
showed his desire to sell the suit property pursuant to which
plaintiff sent an official Sh. Pardeep from ICICI Bank to the de-
fendant who confirmed the loan liability of the plaintiffs qua the
suit property. It is submitted that after negotiations, the total
sale consideration price for suit property was agreed to be ₹ 42
lacs on 25.07.2017 and it was agreed that defendant shall pay
earnest money of ₹ 5 lacs. It is submitted that the defendant paid
an amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs on 20.08.2017 after
withdrawing ₹ 70,000/- and ₹ 80,000/- from the bank accounts
of his daughter and himself respectively. It is submitted that it
was agreed that the plaintiffs shall receive the balance earnest
money of ₹ 3,50,000/- and thereafter the plaintiffs shall execute
sale deed whereafter balance consideration amount shall be paid,
however, despite several request of defendant the plaintiffs did
not accept the balance earnest money. It is submitted that on
29.08.2017, the plaintiffs refused to sell the flat to defendant and
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh Page
SINGH7 of 16 PARIHAR
Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:03:01 +0530
on being asked by the defendant for return of part earnest money
of ₹ 1,50,000/-, it was mutually agreed that till repayment of ₹
1,50,000/- by the plaintiffs, the defendant shall continue as a ten-
ant in the suit property and will pay rent at the rate of ₹ 2,000/-
per month to plaintiff.
15. It is argued that plaintiff and defendant executed agreement
dated 20.08.2017 where in it is mentioned that defendant had
paid plaintiff an amount of ₹1,66,000/- out of which ₹
1,00,000/- given in cash on 20.08.2017, ₹41,000/- given in cash
on 04.03.2017 and ₹ 25,000/- through cheque on 04.03.2017. It
is argued that this agreement and other documents were not
taken on record as application of defendant for filing these docu-
ments was dismissed.
16. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the defendant is
regularly paying rent of ₹2000/- in the bank account of plaintiff
no. 2 as per the mutual consent between plaintiff and defendant.
It is submitted that plaintiff no. 1 send the details of bank ac-
count of plaintiff no.2 to defendant via text message on
02.03.2017. It is argued that since the defendant is paying rent
regularly present case is not maintainable. It is argued that plain-
tiff no. 2 never objected to the rental amount being deposited in
her account. That plaintiff no. 2 made an online complaint to the
bank stating that the amount of is ₹2000/- which is deposited by
defendant does not belong to her and ask the bank to stop the
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh SINGH
Page 8 of 16 Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:03:07 +0530
transaction, however this was a frivolous complaint. It is argued
that the plaintiff is contesting the present case and at the same
time receiving rent without any objection.
17. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the replication
was filed by plaintiff on 07.02.2018 alongwith list of documents
dated 08.10.2018 mentioning complaint by plaintiff to her bank
dated 21.04.2018. It is argued that how list of documents dated
08.10.2018 containing bank complaint dated 21.04.2018 be filed
along with replication filed on 07.02.2018.
18. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff has proved
his title to the suit property and the rent deed. It is argued that as
per the rent deed, the tenancy expired on 04.07.2017 by afflux of
time. It is also argued that the plaintiff has proved notice of ter-
mination of tenancy u/s 106 of TPA. It is argued that nothing
came out in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2. It is also
argued plaintiff has proved all the essential ingredients for evic-
tion and at the same time defendant has failed to substantiate his
defense by evidence.
19. My issue wise finding is as follows.
20. Issue no. 1 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of evic-
tion, as prayed for ?
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh Page 9 of 16PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:03:12 +0530
21. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Geeta @ Geeta Devi Vs Mohd
Raza & Anr, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 2248 enumerated essen-
tial to be proved in suit for ejection. In a suit for ejectment, a
plaintiff has to establish the following:-
Relationship of landlord and tenant.
Tenancy is not a protected tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (herein after referred as DRC).
There is no registered subsisting lease agreement.
Tenancy has been terminated and the respondent tenant has failed
to hand over possession.
22. The defendant has admitted execution of rent deed Ex PW1/3 in his written statement and affidavit of evidence as DW1. DW2 also admitted the rent deed in her affidavit of evidence. It is ar- gued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that even after filing of present suit defendant is paying ₹2000/- as rent. Even from the averments made in WS it is clear that defendant is continuing in the suit property as tenant, hence the admission of execution of rent deed establishes that there is a landlord and tenant relation- ship between parties.
As per rent deed Ex PW1/3 the period of tenancy was from 05.08.2016 till 04.09.2017. Termination of tenancy by afflux of time has not been disputed by defendant. The plaintiff has averred that he also gave notice of termination of tenancy u/s 106 of TPA dated 06.09.2017 Ex PW1/4. The defendant has admitted in WS and affidavit of evidence as DW1 that notice was re-
Digitally signed by AJAY SINGHAJAY PARIHAR CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh SINGH Page 10 of 16Date: PARIHAR 2025.07.17 16:03:17 +0530 ceived. DW2 also admitted the receipt of termination notice in her affidavit of evidence. Seeing the admission made by defen- dant it is safe to say that tenancy has been terminated. It is not the case of defendant that there is any subsisting regis-
tered lease agreement. In W/S the defendant has not averred that there is any other lease agreement or renewal of earlier lease agreement. In such circumstances it can be said that there is no subsisting registered lease agreement.
It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that present case is cov-
ered by DRC as the rate of rent is ₹2000/-. It is argued that after plaintiffs denial to sell the suit property it was mutually agreed that defendant shall pay a monthly rent of ₹2000/- till plaintiff returns ₹1,50,000/- hence the suit property is covered under DRC as monthly rent is below ₹3500/-. It is an admitted fact that rent deed Ex PW 1/3 dated 10.08.2016 expired on 04.07.2017 whereafter plaintiff also gave notice of termination of tenancy to defendant which is also an admitted fact. The defendant has ar- gued that due to mutual agreement the rate of rent was reduced to ₹2000/-, however the defendant has not lead any evidence to es- tablish the fact of mutual agreement. The notice of termination of tenancy shows the intention of plaintiff to evict the defendant. It is admitted by plaintiff PW1 in cross examination that Defendant deposited ₹2000/- in bank account, however PW1 voluntarily stated that he made a complaint to her bank regarding unautho- rized deposit of ₹2000/- and stopping such transaction. This complaint shows the intention of plaintiff that he does not wish Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh SINGH Page 11 of 16 Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17 16:03:22 +0530 to accept any amount from defendant allegedly paid as rent. Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that plaintiff has accepted the rent in his bank account and made complaint after several months. This argument has no legs to stand as the plaintiff served defendant with notice of termination and thereafter if the defen- dant deposit any amount in bank account of plaintiffs then he do so at his perils. The fact of mutual agreement is alleged by defen- dant, however this fact has not been established by defendant. After the termination of tenancy the defendant has become tenant at sufferance who can be evicted without any notice. Since it is not proved that rate of rent is ₹2000/- the present case is not cov- ered under DRC.
23. The plaintiff has established all four essentials for eviction, hence issue no. 1 is decided in favor of plaintiff and against de-
fendant.
24. Issue no. 2 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne prof-
its, if so, at what rate and for which period?
25. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that defendant paid an amount of ₹1,50,000/- to plaintiff as part of total earnest money of ₹5,00,000/-. It is also argued that remaining of ₹3,50,000/- was to be paid by defendant and thereafter plaintiff shall execute sale deed. However, plaintiff refused to accept remaining earnest money. Upon refusal of plaintiff it was mutual agreed that de-
Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH
CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh Page 12 of 16PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.17
16:03:28 +0530
fendant shall continue in tenancy by paying ₹2,000/- till plaintiff repays ₹1,50,000/-. In WS, the defendant has averred that amount of ₹1,50,000/- was paid in presence of his wife and son, however neither of them was examined by defendant. In his WS and affidavit of evidence, the defendant stated that amount of ₹1,50,000/- was paid to plaintiff after withdrawing ₹ 70,000/- and ₹ 80,000/- from the bank accounts of his daughter and him- self respectively, however the defendant did not file his bank statement showing withdrawal. It is also averred in WS that this amount was paid in cash, this court fails to understand as to why this amount was paid in cash when the defendant is paying al- leged rent through bank transaction. Further, the defendant ad- mittedly did not reply to the notice of termination. The defen- dant has also not examined the alleged employee of ICICI bank who visited defendant disclosing fact of loan of plaintiff upon suit property. Above facts shows that defendant has not been able to establish the fact of payment of ₹1,50,000/-.
26. In written arguments it is argued on behalf of defendant that plaintiff and defendant executed agreement dated 20.08.2017 where in it is mentioned that defendant had paid plaintiff an amount of ₹1,66,000/- out of which ₹ 1,00,000/- given in cash on 20.08.2017, ₹41,000/- given in cash on 04.03.2017 and ₹ 25,000/- through cheque on 04.03.2017. It is argued that this agreement and other documents were not taken on record as ap- plication of defendant for filing these documents was dismissed.
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh SINGH Page 13 of 16Date: PARIHAR 2025.07.17 16:03:35 +0530 It is pertinent to point out that this defense of payment of ₹1,66,000/- has come for the first time by way of written argu- ments. The defendant has no where in WS or in his affidavit of evidence has averred this fact. This agreement is also not brought on record. The argument of defendant that this docu- ment was filed with application but the same was dismissed can not change that fact that this document is not on record and can not be read in evidence. Otherwise also this document was not mentioned in affidavit of evidence of DW1 or DW2, hence there was no occasion for plaintiff to cross examine defendant on this fact. DW2 in her cross examined has deposed that a written re- ceipt of ₹1,50,000/- was given to defendant by plaintiff and a written agreement was also executed. The defendant has neither deposed regarding this receipt or agreement in his affidavit of evidence nor has filed the same. This submission of Ld. Counsel remained mere submission without any corroboration by inde- pendent evidence.
27. Record shows that plaintiff filed replication on 07.02.2018 which is evident from the order sheet dated 07.02.2018 as well as the stamp of filing on the backside of replication, however, the replication does not contain any averment that a bank com- plaint was made by the plaintiff. Record further shows that no list of document was filed by the plaintiff along with the replica- tion, which is evident from the order sheet dated 07.02.2018 and filing stamp on the backside of list of documents as well as of Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh Page 14 of 16 Date:
SINGH PARIHAR 2025.07.17 16:03:40 +0530 the documents. As per the stamp, the list of document containing copy of complaint made by plaintiff to bank, copy of reply re- ceived from bank and copy of sale deed were filed on 09.10.2018. Record also shows the PW1 was cross examined on 09.10.2018 during which PW1 stated that he made a complaint to his bank in respect of deposit of ₹2000/- and the copy of that complaint was marked as Mark 'C'. It appears that the docu-
ments referred by Ld. Counsel for defendant were filed on the day of cross examination of PW1 that is on 09.10.2018. It is clear from record that no list of document was filed along with replication. Hence, submissions made by Ld. Counsel for de- fended in this respect are hereby dismissed.
28. In cross examination, the plaintiff has admitted that defendant is depositing ₹2000/- in the bank account after the termination of tenancy. It is also admitted that security amount of ₹16,000/- has not been refunded to defendant. During course of arguments it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that till date the de- fendant has paid an amount of ₹96,000/-. The amount of ₹96,000/- and ₹16,000/- are to be adjusted against the mesne profit. Admittedly the tenency expired on 04.07.2017, hence the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit since 04.07.2017. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that as per rent agreement dated 05.08.2016 Ex PW1/3, in case the defendant does not vacate or handover the physical possession of suit property to the plaintiff a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- per day will be imposed upon the defen-
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh SINGH Page 15 of 16Date: PARIHAR 2025.07.17 16:03:46 +0530 dant. In view of the court this penalty clause appears to be clause in terrorem. The interest of justice would meet if interest is pro- vided to plaintiff. In view of the above discussion, the issue no. 2 is decide in favor of plaintiff and against defendant and it is held that plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit @ ₹ 8,000/- per month starting from 04.07.2017 till actual realisation.
Relief -
29. In view of the above discussion, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff.
30. Therefore, defendant is hereby directed to handover the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the suit property bearing no. B-9/65, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan, attached to the plaintiff.
31. The plaintiff is also held entitled to mesne profit @ ₹ 8,000/-
per month with 9 % interest for the period of 04.07.2017 till date of actual realization after adjusting an amount of ₹ 1,12,000/- (₹96,000/- and ₹16,000/-).
Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared ac-
Digitally signed cordingly. AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH
File be consigned to Record Room. PARIHAR Date:2025.07.17 16:03:53 +0530 Announced in Open Court on 17.07.2025. (Ajay Singh Parihar) ACJ-ARC-North Rohini Court/17.07.2025 CS No. 1127/2019. Dev Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs Jai Singh Page 16 of 16