Delhi District Court
Sh. Gajender Yadav vs Sh. Pramod Kumar on 17 March, 2026
CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030022122017
CS SCJ No. 1030/17
DLWT030022122017
SH. GAJENDER YADAV
S/o Sh. Jai Singh Yadav
R/O, RZ-C-21,
Vishnu Garden Extension,
New Delhi ........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. PRAMOD KUMAR
S/o Sh. Pulkit Pandit,
R/O, RZ-B-4B,At Plot No. 5,
Village Khayala ,
Colony Ravi Nagar,
Delhi ......DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, FOR RECOVERY
OF ARREARS OF RENT, FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES /
MESNE PROFIT AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff seeking suit for recovery of possession, for recovery of arrears of rent, for recovery of damages / mesne VIVEK profit and for permanent injunction.
KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 1/31 17.03.2026AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:17:12 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, his successors, assignees, legal heirs etc. thereby directing the defendant to vacate the property no. RZ- B-4B, at Plot No. 5, Village Khayala, Colony Ravi Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter called as suit property). Further plaintiff has sought the relief of recovery of arrears of rent for 12 months from 10.05.2016 to 09.05.2017 @ Rs. 12,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- alongwith interest. Again plaintiff has sought the relief of recovery of damages from the date of filing of the present suit till the actual delivery of the possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, his successors, assignees, agents etc. @ Rs. 30,000/- per month. Further plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his employees, agents assignees etc. from parting with the possession of the suit property or any part thereof or to create any third party interest in the suit premises, or in any manner by transferring the possession of the same and the defendant may also be restrained from causing any damages / losses to the suit property.
2.1. As per the plaint, the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of property and the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff purchased the said property from the defendant in the month of August, 2014 by way of GeneralVIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by PAGE 2/31 17.03.2026VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:17:22 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession, Letter, Will. After purchasing the said property, the plaintiff also took possession of the same and the defendant also handed over the previous chain of the property to the plaintiff. That after some time i.e. in the month of December, 2014 the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested for accommodation as his family members were not having comfortable accommodation. On the request of the defendant the plaintiff let out the said property on the monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/-excluding the consumption charges. The defendant started giving monthly rent to the plaintiff. Later on i.e. in the month of April, 2016 a Rent Agreement was also executed between the defendant and the plaintiff. The tenancy started w.e.f. 10.12.2014 on monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/- excluding consumption charges. The Rent Agreement was executed for a period of 18 months.
2.2. It is further stated that the defendant could not pay the monthly rent since the month of May, 2016 and requested the plaintiff for accommodating with him as he was facing financial problem but assured the plaintiff that soon he would clear the arrears of rent and would also continue to pay the monthly rent in time. In the month of March, 2017, the defendant gave a cheque towards the arrears of monthly rent from May, 2016 to February, 2017. Noting has been made on the backside of the cheque to that effect. The cheque was issued by Ms. Pooja (daughter of the VIVEK defendant) and the same was handed over to the plaintiff with KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 3/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:17:30 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR assurance that it would be duly encashed. The daughter of the defendant also assured that she has all the concern for the liabilities of her father and the cheque would be duly encashed, however, on presentation in the bank the cheque was returned unpaid for the reasons funds insufficient. The plaintiff immediately approached the defendant and informed him about the fate of the said cheque and the defendant requested the plaintiff for presenting the cheque after 15-20 days in the meanwhile the defendant would be able to make the proper arrangement in the bank account of his daughter. Accordingly. the plaintiff again presented the said cheque in the bank. Again it was returned unpaid for the reasons funds insufficient vide returning memo dated 25.04.2017. That finding no way out the plaintiff has sought separate legal recourse for initiating the criminal proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act against the drawer of the cheque i.e. daughter of the defendant.
2.3. It is further stated that the plaintiff has already terminated the tenancy of the defendant. That finally the plaintiff resorted to legal recourse and got issued a legal notice to the defendant vide dated 04.05.2017 thereby terminating the tenancy of the defendant and further calling upon the defendant to vacate the property in question and handover the peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also called upon the defendant to pay the monthly rent from 10.05.2016 to 09.05.2017 VIVEK i.e. for 12 months that come to Rs. 12,000/- X 12 Rs. 1,44,000/- KUMAR (Rupees One Lakh and Forty Four Thousand Only) and further it AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 4/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:17:38 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR was made clear that if the plaintiff does not vacate the suit property he would be liable to pay the damages towards use and occupation of the same at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per day. That the defendant deliberately avoided the service of the legal notice despite the fact he has been residing there only with his family. The defendant is very well in the knowledge of plaintiff initiating the present legal proceedings for recovery of possession of suit property, arrears of rent, mesne profit/damages etc. That on the other hand the plaintiff also got issued a separate legal notice under Section 138 N.I. Act on account of dishonouring of cheque of the daughter of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- vide cheque bearing no. 895067 dated 17.03.2017, drawn on PNB, Tilak Nagar, Delhi issued and handed over towards payment of arrears of rent for the period 10.05.2016 to 09.05.2017. The plaintiff also simultaneously filing a complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act against the daughter of the defendant.
2.4. It is further stated that the defendant has not informed the plaintiff alongwith receipts of payment of consumption charges. That as per the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant the defendant is required to pay the consumption charges directly to the concerned department. The plaintiff is not aware about the dues of the consumption charges and reserves his right to claim the dues, if any, from the defendant after vacation of the suit property by the defendant VIVEK when the plaintiff would be in condition to assess the same. That KUMAR AGARWAL the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in the month Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.03.17 PAGE 5/31 17.03.2026 17:17:45 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR of August, 2014 when the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the defendant and when the defendant executed the transfer documents in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff alongwith the complete previous chain. That the plaintiff had no other efficacious & alternate remedy except to approach this honble court by way of present suit.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT:-
3. As per the written statement, the preliminary objections have been taken that the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands as the dramatically and concocted story cooked by him is full of contradictions and non supportive of its own version as it does not stands on its own legs because the Defendant was never under the tenancy of the Plaintiff and more over, after the purchase of the suit property, the Defendant was continuously enjoying the ownership and its possession and even the rooms of the second floor of the suit property, have also given on rent by the Defendant to its respective tenants. That the present suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiff is not the owner/landlord of the suit property and the Defendant is not the tenant in the suit property and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. That the suit of the Plaintiffs is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant VIVEK KUMAR and hence the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.03.17 PAGE 6/31 17.03.2026 17:17:54 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
3.1. That suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the documents i.e. General Power of Attorney, Will, Possession letter, Receipt, Agreement to sell and Rent Agreement filed/relied by the Plaintiff did not registered as per Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and in the absence of the registration of the documents, there is a bar to look into the said documents and hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. That the Plaintiff has deliberately filed the false affidavits in support of the their false and fictitious suit and application, hence they are liable to be prosecuted as per law. That the Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the Defendant with the malafide intentions to extort money from the Defendant and for black mailing them, therefore, the Defendant has reserved his right to file a case of malicious prosecution under the provision of the law against the Plaintiff. That the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the Plaintiff has twisted concealed and distorted the true facts for the purpose of achieving the desire illegal object whereas the true facts are that in the month of August, 2014, the Defendant had approached the Plaintiff to borrow an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on a reasonable rate of interest i.e. 24% p.a. for the period of 20 months and after some negotiations, the same was agreed by the Plaintiff and therefore, under the garb of loan transaction and documentation, the Plaintiff had taken number of signatures and thumb impression of VIVEK the Defendant on the various written, blank and stamp papers, KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 7/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:00 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR with the assurance that the same is the part of the aforesaid loan transaction and would be destroyed, when the aforesaid loan of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be return to the Plaintiff. 3.2. It is pertinent to mention here that the Defendant has no option other than to bow down before the Plaintiff and accordingly, he put his signatures and thumb impressions on various documents. It is pertinent to mention here that after the expiry of aforesaid decided period of loan transaction i.e. 20 months, the Plaintiff in the first week of March, 2017, came to the Defendant and asked for the repayment of the aforesaid loan amount, but as the Defendant had not the arrangement of the said repayment of loan, therefore, he preferred to give three post dated cheques to the Plaintiff in discharge of the aforesaid loan transaction and out of which two cheques were of Rs.50,000/- bearing Cheque No.59011 and 59012 in his account and one cheque from his daughter's account, remained blank, purposely to adjust the remaining balance principle amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest amount, if any, and therefore, the Plaintiff was ready for the aforesaid arrangement of the Defendant and received the aforesaid cheques, but at the same time took signatures of the Defendant on the few blank papers and stamps papers. It is pertinent to mention here that the Plaintiff did not respect the genuine approach of the Defendant and misused the aforesaid sincerity by misusing all the three cheques in a different way against the Defendant and his daughter, as two cheques were VIVEK hornoured on the name of third person and the cheque belonging KUMAR AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 8/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:07 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR to the daughter of the Defendant had been misused by filling the wrongful amount, which was resulted into dishonour. 3.3. That the present suit is not maintainable as the same is a fake attempt to grab the property of the Defendant on the basis of false, fictitious, forged, and fabricated documents as there had never been the relation of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the defendant, therefore, till date there is only a single relation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that is in respect of the aforesaid loan transaction, otherwise, the Plaintiff comes under the category of known only. Hence the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost and more so ever, the Plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of false and fictitious documents and liable to be prosecuted under section 340 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court.
3.4. In the reply on merits, it is submitted that the Plaintiff has no link or connection with the suit property as the same has been purchased by the defendant from its lawful owner and since then the Defendant and his family are in continuous peaceful, un-interrupted, unchallenged and without hindrance in possession of the same. That the defendant never handed over the said property to the plaintiff. That the defendant came to know about the legal proceedings for the recovery of possession of suit property only after receiving the summon of this Hon'ble Court i.e on 8th of September 2017. That there is/was no relationship of tenant and landlord between defendant and plaintiff. All the other averments of the plaint are denied and averment of preliminary VIVEK KUMAR objections are reiterated. AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR PAGE 9/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:14 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR REPLICATION:-
4. In the replication filed on behalf of plaintiff to the WS, averments of plaint are reiterated and allegations of WS are denied.
ISSUES
5. When pleadings were complete the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 26.04.2018:-
Issue no.1:- Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. If so, its effects? OPD .
Issue no.2:- Whether the suit is without cause of action and the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? OPD.
Issue no.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession, as prayed for? OPP.
Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of arrears of rent, as prayed for? OPP.
Issue no.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of damages, as prayed for? OPP. Issue no.6:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
Issue no.7:- Relief. Digitally signed
by VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
Date:
AGARWAL 2026.03.17
17:18:22 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 10/31 17.03.2026 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR Evidence of Plaintiff:-
6. In plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and he relied on the following documents:-
Ex PW1/1 i.e. Site Plan.
Ex.PW1/2(colly) i.e. Copy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will. Ex.PW1/3(OSR) i.e. Copy of Rent Agreement. Ex.PW1/4 i.e. Notice alongwith Postal Receipt.
6.1. Thereafter witness has been cross-examined accordingly and then PE has been closed vod. 25.07.2024.
Evidence of Defendant:-
7. In defendant evidence, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/A and he relied on the following documents:-
Digitally Ex.DW1/1(colly) i.e. Rent receipts. signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR Mark A i.e. Copy of Electricity Bill. KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
Mark B i.e. Copy of passbook of the deponent. 2026.03.17 17:18:29 +0530 7.1. Thereafter, defendant examined one summoned witness i.e. the Alhmad in the court of Ld. JMFC-12, West, THC, (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 11/31 17.03.2026 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR Delhi as DW-2, who brought the record of Ex.DW2/1 i.e. Copy of Complaint in case no. 4097/2019 titled as Pramod Kumar Vs. Gajender Yadav and anrs. Further defendant examined one summoned witness from the Office of BSES Tagore Garden, Delhi-27 as DW3 who brought the record of Ex.DW3/1(colly) i.e. Electricity Bills. Further defendant examined one summoned witness i.e. the Alhmad in the court of Ld. ASJ-05, West, THC, Delhi as DW-4, who brought the record of Ex.DW4/1(colly) i.e. record of Criminal Appeal No. 92/2023 titled as Pooja Vs. Sh.
Gajender Yadav. Further defendant examined one summoned witness i.e. the Assitant Manager of Axis Bank, Tilak Nagar, Delhi-18 as DW-5, who brought the record of Ex.DW5/1 i.e. record of bank statement of account in Axis Bank. Lastly defendant examined one witness namely Sh. Tauheeq Khan as DW6 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW6 who relied upon already exhibited rent receipts as Ex.DW1/1(colly). All the witnesses have been cross-examined accordingly and DE has been closed vod 17.12.2025.
FINDINGS
8. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties have been heard at length and file has been carefully and minutely perused including the written subnmission filed on behalf of defendant and my issues-wise findings with reasons Digitally signed thereof are as under:- VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:35 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 12/31 17.03.2026 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR ISSUE NO. 1 8.1 As discussed hereinafter in the findings of issue no. 3, the case of plaintiff with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties has been duly established and again the version of defendant himself has remained not proved. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is hereby decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 28.2 It is observed that at the very first, when suit is being decided on merits, no question arises for rejection of plaint at this stage and moreover, as discussed hereinafter in the findings of issue no. 3, the case of plaintiff with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties has been duly established and again the version of defendant himself has not been proved. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is hereby decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 38.3. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff only. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff has duly proved his ownership in the suit property by way of VIVEK document Ex.PW1/2(colly) including GPA, agreement to sell, KUMAR affidavit, receipt, possession letter and Will executed in his favor AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 13/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:41 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR by the defendant himself and it is submitted that the original of the said documents are also on record. It is argued that defendant has taken the plea that said documents were executed on the pretext of loan availed by the defendant from the plaintiff, however, the said story of the defendant is full of several contradictions. That defendant / DW1 in his cross-examination has failed to explain on how many written documents he had allegedly put his thumb impressions and signed. Again, he has also failed to explain how the said amount borrowed by him was repaid by him and rather he also gave the false statement with respect to the settlement of the complaint case filed by the plaintiff against the daughter of the defendant under NI Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the entire story of the defendant is a concocted story and as the tenancy of the defendant has duly terminated by way of legal notice Ex.PW1/4, plaintiff is duly entitled for possession of the suit property from the defendant.
8.3.1. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that at the first defendant had never sold the suit property to the plaintiff and even otherwise, the document Ex.PW1/2(colly) have no validity in law as being unregistered document and therefore, it cannot be looked into by the court as per Section 49 of Registration Act. Similarly, the rent agreement in question i.e. Ex.PW1/3 being unregisterd and for the period of 18 months also is not a valid document and cannot be looked into by the court as per Section 49 of Registration Act. VIVEK KUMAR It is further argued that defendant has also placed on record the AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 14/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:49 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR rent receipts i.e. Ex.DW1/1, issued by him in favour of his tenant Tauheeq Khan, who was also examined before the court as DW6 to prove that he was the tenant of the defendant in the suit property and therefore, no question arises for the defendant being the tenant of the plaintiff in the said property.
8.3.2. Heard. Before going into the case of the plaintiff, I find it pertinent to discuss the case of the defendant. As mentioned above, the version of the defendant as per the WS is that he never sold the suit property to the plaintiff. That he had availed the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for period of 20 months @ 24% per annum in August, 2014 and at that time plaintiff had taken number of signatures and thumb impressions on the various "written, blank and stamp papers". It is the further case of the defendant that after expiry of the 20 months, the plaintiff in first week of March, 2017 came to the defendant and then defendant had given three post dated cheque to the plaintiff in discharge of the said loan transaction, out of which two cheques were of Rs. 50,000/- each and one cheque from the account of his daughter, was given blank to adjust the remaining balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest amount, if any and that at the same time plaintiff further took signatures of tthe defendant on few blank papers and stamp papers. On thorough appreciation of evidence, I come to conclusion that the entire version of the defendant, as mentioned above, apparently VIVEK seems to be a concoted story. I come to this conclusion for the KUMAR various reasons discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 15/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:56 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR 8.3.3. It is observed that defendant has stated that he had availed the loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in August, 2014 for period of 20 months, which expired in April, 2016, however, surprisingly the defendant has stated that " after expiry of aforeseaid decided period of loan transaction i.e. 20 months, the plaintiff in the first week of March, 2017, came to the defendant". Now, at the very first, the defendant has also failed to explain that what was the circumstances in which he was compelled to borrow the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Again, nothing is explained that when the period of 20 mopnths had expired in April, 2016, why plaintiff would have approached the defendant in March, 2017. The defendant has also failed to explain that when he had given the two filled cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each to the plaintiff, why the blank cheque from the account of his daughter would have been given to the plaintiff to adjust the amount of interest. As reflected from the evidence of plaintiff as well as from the document Ex.DW4/1, which is the record of criminal appeal filed by the daughter of the defendant against the plaintiff with respect to her conviction in the complaint u/S 138 of NI Act, the said cheque issued by the daughter of the defendant in favour of plaintiff was only for amount of Rs. 1,08,000/-. Accordingly, the said story of the defendant that he had got issued a blank cheque from his daughter to the plaintiff for adjustment of the interest amount along with the principal sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is apparently falsified, because otherwise, the plaintiff would have filled the VIVEK cheque for amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- including the interest KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 16/31 17.03.2026AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:06 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR amount of Rs. 96,000/-, calculated @ 24 % per annum for period of two years on the principal sum of Rs. 2,00,000. Again as reflected from the cross-examination of DW1 dt. 21.08.2025, the defendant himself stated that he did not remember as to when he had given the two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each to the plaintiff. That he also did not remember whether said cheques were given before or after his daughter gave cheques to the plaintiff. He further stated that he also did not remember as to when he had taken the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. 8.3.4. Accordingly, the entire story of the defendant of taking loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff is apparently not belivable and seems to be an after thought story. On the contrary, the version of plaintiff that said cheques were given for payment of rent amount, by the defendant, has been a consistent version without any contradictions. The said version of the plaintiff is there in the plaint as well as in the evidence affidavit of plaintiff / PW1 and it is further coroborated from the verision of the plaintiff in the complaint filed u/S 138 of NI Act against the daughter of the defendant, as reflected from the record Ex.DW4/1.
8.3.5. It is further observed that the plea of the defendant is that at the time of availing of the said loan, the plaintiff had obtained his signatures on some blank, written and stamp papers, however, said verision has again remained not proved and rather same also appears to be a false story. It is observed that in the VIVEK WS as well as in the evidence affidavit, defendant has stated that KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 17/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:12 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR he had signed said documents at the time availilng of loan of Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff and at the time of repayment of the said loan by way of cheques, however as discussed above, the version of defendant of taking loan from the plaintiff, itself has been held to be a concocted story. Again, as reflected from the cross- examination of DW1 dated 21.08.2025, he has stated that these were 5-6 documents and that the same were blank. Accordingly, on the one hand, the defendant has duly admitted that he had signed at least 5-6 documents and on the other hand, he has stated them to be blank as well as written and also being the stamp papers. A document can never be 'blank' and rather a blank paper becomes a document only when it has been written/ typed over. Again, on the one hand, defendant stated that he had signed 5-6 blank/written documents and on the contrary, he denied his signatures on the document EX. DW1/PX, which is the original document of the rent agreement. He further denied his signatures on the documents Ex. DW1/PX1 (Colly.), which are the photocopy of his own aadhar card and the photocopy of his voter id. He further denied his signatures on the original property documents of which the photocopy was already on record as Ex. PW1/2. Accordingly, as per the version of defendant himself, it is not clear that which were those 5-6 blank/written documents or stamp papers, which were signed by the defendant allgedly at the time of taking of loan from the plaintiff. At the same time, the defendant has also not stated even VIVEK a single word that what were the circumstances in which the KUMAR defendant was compelled to alledgely sign on blank papers or AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 18/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:20 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR some written documents, without reading the contents of the same. There is presumption in law that every document is signed by a person only after reading the contents of the same and the said presumption can be rebutted only by way of substantial evidence. In the facts of present case, the defendant has not even stated about the circumstances in which he was compelled to take loan from the plaintiff by signing some documents without reading the contents of the same.
8.3.6. Going one step further, it is observed that by exercising the power under Section 73 of I.E Act (71 BSA), if the signatures of the defendant on the original document in question including the rent agreement Ex. DW1/PX and on the original documents of sale transaction including GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter, receipt and Will; are compared with his admitted signatures on the pleadings of the present suit including the WS, annexed affidavits, the applications filed by the defendant and also with his signatures on the document Ex. DW1/PX2 and Ex.DW1/PX3, which are the copy of complaints given to police, it can be seen from the naked eyes that these are the signatures of one and same person only. The flow and formation of hindi letter 'Pa' 'Ma' and 'Da' as well as the formation of the matra of 'Ra' on the letter 'Pa' and the flow and the formation of matra 'O' on the letter 'Ma' are apparently same and identical. Therefore, it can be safely conculded that the document in question i.e. rent agreement Ex. DW1/PX and the VIVEK original document of sale transaction, copy of which has been KUMAR AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.03.17 PAGE 19/31 17.03.2026 17:19:29 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR placed on record as Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) were signed and executed by the defendant only.
8.3.7. The said finding is further corroborated from the contents of the document Ex. DW1/PX3. As reflected from the cross-examination of defendant/DW1, he had given one complaint to police on 18.09.2017 i.e. Ex. DW1/PX3, on the basis of which one DD entry was also recorded in the concerned police station and in the said complaint, no single was uttered by the defendant with respect to any documents being signed by the defendant at the time of availing loan from the plaintiff. The contents of the said complaint pertaining to the year 2017 are very much relevant in the facts of the present case, as the said complaint is ante dated of the filing of WS by the defendant and therefore, it is clear that the plea of his signatures being obtained on blank papers has been taken by the defendant for the first time in his WS only.
8.3.8. It is further observed that defendant has also taken the plea that he had let out the suit property to some tenants and has placed reliance on rent receipts i.e. Ex.DW1/1, issued by him in favour of his tenant Tauheeq Khan, who was also examined before the court as DW6 to prove that he was the tenant of the defendant in the suit property and therefore, it was argued that no question arises for the defendant being the tenant of the plaintiff in the said property.
8.3.9. In this regard, it is observed that at the very first, the VIVEK defendant/DW1 failed to explain that at what point of time and in KUMAR what manner he had let out the suit property to some tenants as AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 20/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:37 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR alleged by him. In his cross-examination, he failed even to state that who had filed the said rent receipts and he also failed to deny the suggestion that the said rent receipts were filled at the same time with the same pen. Going one step further, the said tenant examined as DW6 namely Tauheeq Khan himself deposed in his cross-examination that "the rent receipts Ex. DW1/1 were filled by Vakil Sahab in his presence". Again, as rightly put in the cross-examination of DW1, all the said rent receipts are apparently filled by the same ink and most probably by the same person at the same time. Accordingly, it appears that the advocate of the defendant himself got forged the said rent receipts Ex. DW1/1 so as to prepare evidence in favour of the defendant.
8.3.10. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the entire version of defendant has not only remained 'not proved' and rather same appears to be a concocted story and therefore, same cannot be relied upon in any manner. 8.3.11 Now, let me advert to the merits of the case of the plaintiff. Regarding the ownership of the plaintiff in the suit property, it is observed that plaintiff has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/2 (colly), the original of which have been also placed on record and said documents include the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will dt. 28.08.2014 executed in his favor by the defendant himself. The said documents have been prepared on the stamp papers of the even date, in which the name of first party is mentioned as of VIVEK the defendant and name of second party is mentioned as of the KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 21/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:44 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR plaintiff and all the said stamp papers mentioned the due description of the document, which shows that these documents were prepared after due deliberation and after having purchased the stamp papers from the concerned stamp vendor or through electronic mode by mentioning all the details of the document to be prepared on said stamp paper. There is no reason to presume that plaintiff had got prepared all the said documents in advance, when the defendant appraoched the plaintiff to obtain the loan. Again, the defendant has also failed to explain that how his photographs affixed on the said documents were in possession of plaintiff. Again, as discussed above, the defendant has completely failed to prove his version in any manner and it has been held that said documents were executed by the defendant only. Accordingly, the genuineness of the said documents is certainly not in question in any manner.
8.3.12. It is pertinent to mention here that the said documents not being the sale deed in terms of S 54 of TP Act do not convey the absolute title in favour of the plaintiff, however, they certainly provide the better title to the plaintiff than the defendant, who has no document in his favour to establish any right in the suit property. At the same time, the plaintiff/PW1 in his cross-examination disclosed all the particulars and details about the payment of sale consideration of Rs. 10 lacs to the defendant. Again, the defendant himself admitted in his cross- examination that the complete original chain of the suit property VIVEK was with the plaintiff only. In this regard, the defendant took the KUMAR plea that the titled documents of his property were mortgaged AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR PAGE 22/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:53 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR with the plaintiff, however said plea is certainly not tenable, as it has been held above that the story of the defendant of taking loan from the plaintiff was not believable in any manner and rather same appeared to be a concocted story and consequently no question arises for any mortgage being there. Therefore, the only necessary inference to be drawn is that the previous original documents were handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of the sale of the suit property only.
8.3.13 It is further observed that on the one hand, the plaintiff has specifically stated in his evidence affidavit as PW1 that the defendant was the tenant in the suit property at the monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month and has proved the lease agreement Ex. DW1/PX and his version in this regard to the standard of preponderance of probabilities, whereas on the other hand the defendant has completely failed to prove his version of the WS in any manner. As reflectred from persual of said document, it has been prepared on the stamp paper of the even date i.e. 22.04.2016 and it bears the name of first party as of the plaintiff and the name of second party as of the defendant and the description of the said document has been also mentioned as 'lease-rent deed upto 1 year' and therefore, it is clear that said document was prepared as a rent agreement only. Again, there is no reason to presume that plaintiff would have purchased the said stamp paper in advance, when the defendant approached him for taking the loan or for repaying of said loan in March 2017, as VIVEK KUMAR said document is dated 22.04.2016. Moreover, as reflected from AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 23/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:20:00 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR the said stamp paper, the stamp duty of the same was paid by the defendant only and as discussed above, it has been held that said document was signed by the defendant only. Accordingly, there is no other conclusion except the one that the said document was executed as a lease agreement between both the parties and therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties is duly established. Said conclusion is further fortified from the observations made above that the cheque of Rs. 1,08,000/- was given by the daughter of the defendant to the plaintiff towards the payment of rent amount of 9 months calculated @ Rs. 12,000/- per month.
8.3.14. Now, regarding the legal sanctity of the said rent agreement being unregistered document, it is observed that said rent agreement was executed on 22.04.2016 for the period commencing from 10.12.2014 for period of 18 months and therefore, the tenancy was to be concluded on 10.06.2016 and therefore, the actual and effective period of tenancy to be governed by way of said rent agreement was only of the duration between 22.04.2016 to 10.06.2016. As the said period was less than the period of 11 months, it was not required to be registered and therefore the bar under Section 49 of Registration Act would not operate in the given facts.
8.3.15. Even otherwise, as per proviso of Section 49 of Registration Act, the unregistered document can be read for colleteral purposes. Now, in the facts of the present case, as discused above, the execution of the said document is not in VIVEK KUMAR question and moreover, in any eventuality, even if the said rent AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 24/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:20:07 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR agreement is not looked into, the month to month tenancy will be certainly there between both the parties. 8.3.16. It is further observed that as stated by the defendant in his cross-examination, the address of the suit property was correctly mentioned in the legal notice Ex. PW1/4, which was sent to the defendant through speed post. Though the said notice was received unserved with the report 'No such person', as reflected from the envelope of the said notice, however in the given circumstances, it appears that the defendant deliberately avoided the service of said notice, as there was no other reason for the said report by the concerned post official. Even otherwise, mere filing of the suit amounts to termination of tenancy. In this regard reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Nopani Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) 2 SCC 728.
8.3.17. Accordingly, even if it is taken that tenancy of defendant was terminated from the date of service of summons of the present suit i.e. 08.09.2017, the defendant became unauthorized occupant in the suit property from the said date and therefore, plaintiff is duly entitled for possession of the suit property from the defendant. Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 48.4. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff VIVEK only. As per the prayer (ii) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought KUMAR the recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 25/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:20:15 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR month for period of 12 months from 10.05.2016 to 09.05.2017 along with interest.
8.4.1. As discussed in the findings of issue no. 3, the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties has been duly established. Again, in the given facts and considering the cheque amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- given by the daughter of the defendant to the plaintiff, I am further satisfied that plaintiff has also proved to the standard of prepondernce of probabilities that the monthly rent was Rs. 12,000/- per month only. 8.4.2. Now, the onus to prove the payment of said rent were on the defendant only, however no such evidence has been led. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,44,000/- as the arrears of rent of 12 months from the defendant and is also awarded the pendente lite and future interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the suit till date of recovery of the amount. Therefore, issue no. 4 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5 :-
8.5. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As per the prayer (iii) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought the recovery of mesne profit / damages at the rate of Rs. 30,000/-
per month for the period from the date of filing of the suit till the date of vacation of the suit property by the defendant. 8.5.1 It is observed that as defined under Section 2 (12) of VIVEK CPC 'mesne profits' means those profits which the person in KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 26/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:20:21 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom. In the present case,the defendant has been in wrongful possession of the suit property after termination of his tenancy. As discussed above the tenancy of the defendant was terminated after service of summons in the persent suit on 08.09.2017 and therefore, the plaintiff is certainly entitled for relief of mesne profits as claimed by the plaintiff with effect from 08.09.2017.
8.5.2. Regarding the amount of mesne profits, it is to observe that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the amount of rent for various properties in and around Delhi have been rising staggeringly. In this regard, I also seek reliance from the authority of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Vinod Khanna & Ors. vs. Bakshi Sachdev (deceased) through LRs & Ors." AIR 1996 (Delhi) 32, wherein it was observed that the judicial notice can be taken of the fact about increase of rents in the premises in and around Delhi, which is a city of growing importance being the capital of the country, which is a matter of public history. Again, in case of "Sh. M.R. Sahni vs. Mrs. Doris Randhawa" 2008 (104) DRJ 246, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while reiterating the steep increase in the rentals in Delhi, again emphasized that in relation to determination of mesne profits, there is always some element of guess work.
8.5.3 Accordingly, in view of this legal settled position, let VIVEK KUMAR me advert to appreciation of the rental value of the suit property. AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 27/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:20:27 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR As held above, the rent of the suit property was already Rs. 12,000/- per month in the year 2016. The suit was filed in the August 2017 and has remained pending for last more than eight and half years. It is the matter of common knowledge that the rental value in the said period have increased multifold in the capital city of Delhi. The plaintiff has claimed the damages / mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month and same was deposed by the plaintiff in his evidence affidavit, however, no question was raised in the cross-examination of plaintiff / PW1 in this regard, and accordingly the said version of plaintiff has remained unchallenged. However, considering the locality and the area of the property in possession of the defendant, I am not inclined to grant to the relief of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month and I am of the view that suit premises could easily fetch the average amount of Rs. 18,000/- as rental value to the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is held entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of service of summons i.e. 08.09.2017 till date of delivery of possession of the suit property by the defendant. Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 68.6. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As discussed in the findings of issue no. 3, on the one hand VIVEK the plaintiff has established his title in the suit property much KUMAR AGARWAL better than the defendant and on the other hand defendant has Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 28/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:20:34 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR failed to prove any right in the suit property. Accordingly, the defendant has or his employees, agents, etc. have not right to part away the possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff or to create any third party interest in the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff is held entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for. Issue no. 6 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 7:- RELIEF 8.7. In view of above findings of issue no. 3 to 6, the plaintiff is granted following reliefs:-
(I) The plaintiff is held entitled for possession of the suit property from the defendant and defendant is directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. RZ-B-4B, Plot No. 5, Village Khayala, Ravi Nagar Colony, New Delhi to the plaintiff within one month from date of decree.
(II) The plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs.
1,44,000/- as the arrears of rent of 12 months from the defendant and is also awarded the pendente lite and future interest on the said amount @ 6% per VIVEK KUMAR annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the AGARWAL suit till date of recovery of the amount and Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.03.17 PAGE 29/31 17.03.2026 17:20:40 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR defendant is directed to pay the said amount within one month from date of decree.
(III) The plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of service of summons i.e. 08.09.2017 till date of delivery of possession by the defendant and defendant is directed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff within one month from date of decree. (IV) The plaintiff is held entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for and accordingly, the defendant or his employees, agents, etc. are hereby permanently restrained to part away the possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff or to create any third party interest in the suit property.
Conclusion
9. In view of findings of issue no. 1 to 7, suit is hereby decreed with costs. Suit is hereby decreed, however, the plaintiff is directed to file the court fees payable for aggregate amount of mesne profits, calculated till date as per Sec. 11 of Court Fees Act within one month from today.
VIVEK KUMAR
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and it is made clear that AGARWAL if court fees is not filed in this regard within the given time, the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.03.17 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:20:46 +0530 PAGE 30/31 17.03.2026 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR decree sheet be prepared for all the reliefs except the relief of mesne profits.
11. In case of failure by the defendant, plaintiff is at liberty to approach the court for satisfaction of decree. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
Date:
AGARWAL 2026.03.17
17:20:53 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC,
Delhi/17.03.2026
(Announced in open court
On 17.03.2026).
Note: This judgement contains 31 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 AGARWAL 17:21:00 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/17.03.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 31/31 17.03.2026