Delhi District Court
Gaurav Dagar And Anr vs Urvashi Kumar And Ors on 8 May, 2026
DLST010074282019
In the Court of Sh. Munish Bansal,
District Judge-03, South District,
Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi.
RCA DJ No. : 50/2019
In the matter of:-
1. Sh. Gaurav Dagar,
S/o Sh. Jai Singh,
R/o Farm No. 8, Shahoorpur Farms,
Shahoorpur, Executive Club Road,
New Delhi - 110074.
2. Sh. Jai Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Risal Singh,
R/o Farm No. 8, Shahoorpur Farms,
Shahoorpur, Executive Club Road,
New Delhi - 110074. ...Appellants/plaintiffs
Versus
1. Smt. Urvashi Kumar,
Widow of Late Sh. Vishwant Kumar,
R/o Shop No. 18 and 19, Modern Bazar,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.1 of 18
2. Sh. Kunal Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Vishwant Kumar,
R/o Shop No. 18 and 19, Modern Bazar,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Amit Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Vishwant Kumar,
R/o Shop No. 18 and 19, Modern Bazar,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
4. Ms. Mandakini,
D/o Late Sh. Vishwant Kumar,
R/o Shop No. 18 and 19, Modern Bazar,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. ...Respondents/ defendants
Appeal presented on : 31.10.2019
Arguments Concluded on : 06.05.2026
Judgment Pronounced on : 08.05.2026
FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI
RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FIRST DECREE DATED
30.09.2019, PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN SUIT NO. 593241/2016 TITLED
AS "GAURAV DAGAR AND ANOTHER VS. URVASHI KUMAR
AND OTHERS".
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants, Sh. Gaurav Dagar and Sh. Jai Singh, under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.2 of 18 impugned judgment and first decree dated 30.09.2019 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in Suit No. 593241/2016 titled as "Gaurav Dagar and Another vs. Urvashi Kumar and Others", whereby the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits. The dismissal was founded on the main finding that the agreed rate of rent for the suit premises was Rs. 2,500/- per month, bringing the tenancy within the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, DRCA), and consequently ousting the Civil Court of jurisdiction. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to by their designations in the original suit, i.e., appellants as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants.
CASE OF THE APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS
2. As per the plaint, the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no. 2, Sh. Jai Singh, is the owner of premises consisting of one room having an area of approximately 50 sq. feet built on land of approximately 0.5 Bigha (approximately 455 sq. metres) at Gaushala Road, Maidangarhi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, bearing Khasra No. 403 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). Plaintiff no. 1 is the son and authorised representative of plaintiff no. 2 and was authorised to give out the suit property on lease.
2.1 Via Rent Deed/Agreement dated 01.04.2003, plaintiff no.
RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.3 of 181 gave the suit property on lease to the original defendant, Sh. Vishwant Kumar, for the purpose of running a dog shelter, for a period of eleven months at an agreed rate of rent of Rs. 7,500/- per month. The defendant paid rent for only eight months at the said rate. The period of tenancy expired on 29.02.2004, whereafter the defendant became a tenant at sufferance. A legal notice dated 08.05.2004 calling upon the defendant to vacate went unheeded. The plaintiffs sought a decree of possession, arrears of rent of Rs. 22,500/- being three months' arrears at Rs. 7,500/- per month, and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of expiry of the lease till actual vacation.
CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
3. In the Written Statement, the defendant denied that any rent deed dated 01.04.2003 was executed between the parties, alleging it to be a forged and fabricated document never signed by the deceased defendant. It was further submitted that the tenancy was at a rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month and was therefore protected under the DRCA, ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was further stated that the tenancy was of permanent nature with clear understanding that defendant can raise further construction, and that an advance sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid, covering 24 months' rent at Rs. 2,500/- per month up to March 2005. The payments of Rs. 7,500/- reflected in the bank statements were described as advance amounts paid on the demand of plaintiff no. 1 for adjustment against future rent.
RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.4 of 184. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant, Sh. Vishwant Kumar, died and his legal heirs i.e. his widow Smt. Urvashi Kumar and his children Sh. Kunal Kumar, Sh. Amit Kumar, and Ms. Mandakini, were brought on record and are the respondents herein.
APPELLANTS/ PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
5. Plaintiff no. 1 examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). He relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Ex. PW1/1 - Original Rent Deed dated 01.04.2003;
(ii) Ex. PW1/2 - Certified copy of Bank Statement for financial year 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004;
(iii) Ex. PW1/3 - Legal notice dated 08.05.2004;
(iv) Ex. PW1/4 to PW1/7 - postal/courier receipts, reply to notice, and certified copy of order dated 28.09.2004.
Plaintiff no. 2 examined himself as PW-2, relying upon the same rent deed. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-examined by counsel for the defendant.
5.1 Though Ajay Gupta was listed as a plaintiff witness and his affidavit for examination-in-chief was filed; however, he was not put up for examination in chief as well as for cross-examination. No bank officer from HDFC Bank was produced before the court.
RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.5 of 185.2 Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 16.07.2018.
RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE 6.1 In defence evidence, Sh. Kunal Kumar, son of the original defendant, examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his affidavit (Ex. DW1/A). He reiterated the defendants' stand that the rent deed was forged, the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month, and the tenancy was of a permanent nature. DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed on 15.10.2018.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT
7. After framing the issues, the Ld. Trial Court, on issues No. 1 and 3 being taken together, held that the rent deed (Ex. PW1/1) had not been proved. PW-1 himself admitted in cross-examination that no writing was made when the property was handed over, and could not confirm whether a written rent agreement was executed at the time of delivery of possession. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court held that the rent deed was not proved in the manner required by law.
7.1 On the bank statements (Ex. PW1/2), the Trial Court held that although they showed amounts of Rs. 7,500/-, however as per defendants, these amounts are also in exact multiples of Rs. 2,500/-, RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.6 of 18 the defendants' version that payments were made as advance rent at Rs. 2,500/- per month could not be ruled out and thus, there was no conclusive evidence to hold that rent was @ Rs. 7,500/- per month. Accordingly, the Trial Court held the rate of rent to be Rs. 2,500/- per month, the suit to be barred under Section 50 of the DRCA, and dismissed it. Issue No. 2 relating to misjoinder and court fee was decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following grounds/submissions in support of the appeal:
a) That the Ld. Trial Court erred in completely ignoring the evidence which clearly establish that rent was received at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month. The payment pattern being monthly entries of Rs. 7,500/- each, and one entry of Rs. 30,000/- for four months is wholly consistent with a monthly tenancy at Rs. 7,500/- and is entirely inconsistent with the advance-payment theory put up by the defendants.
b) That the Ld. Trial Court committed an error by treating the rate of rent was to be proved by rent deed.
c) The trial ignored that the rate of rent can be proved RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.7 of 18 through other reliable and admissible evidence, particularly the bank statements.
d) That the defendants chose not to lead any evidence, thereby leaving the entire evidence of the plaintiffs unrebutted. The bare suggestion in cross-examination that the rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month is insufficient to displace the plaintiffs' affirmative evidence.
e) That the impugned judgment is perverse, and against principles of law.
ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants has contended as follows:
a) That the rent deed (Ex. PW1/1) is a forged and fabricated document. The stamp paper was purchased on 15.01.2004 but the deed purports to be of 01.04.2003. PW-1 himself admitted that no written document was executed when the property was handed over.
b) The attesting witness Sh. Ajay Gupta not only could not be produced for cross-examination but actively retracted his earlier affidavit and filed an application specifically averring that his signature had been obtained under pressure from plaintiff no. 1. The RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.8 of 18 rent deed having been rightly held as unproved, there is no basis to hold the rate of rent to be Rs. 7,500/- per month.
c) That the bank statements (Ex. PW1/2) were not properly proved. No authorised bank officer was examined to certify the statements. The bank officer listed as a witness was never produced.
The statements are therefore legally inadmissible and cannot be read in evidence.
d) Even if the bank statements are taken at face value, the amounts paid (Rs. 7,500/-, Rs. 30,000/-) are entirely consistent with the defendants' case of advance payments on demand, as the total aggregate of Rs. 60,000/- covers 24 months at Rs. 2,500/- per month.
e) That the suit property has been improperly described as one room of 50 sq. ft. that plaintiffs claimed to have let out, as against the much larger area i.e. comprising three rooms, two sheds, and more than 20 kennels in an area of approximately 1.5 acres, in actual possession of the defendants. The suit for possession of an improperly described property is therefore not maintainable.
f) That the plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership of the suit property by placing any title document on record. The suit property is government land, and plaintiff no. 1 in cross-examination admitted to not having filed any document to show the ownership of RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.9 of 18 his father i.e. plaintiff no. 2. The suit filed without establishing ownership is not maintainable.
FOLLOWING POINTS OF DETERMINATION ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT:
Firstly: "Whether the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the rent deed (Ex. PW1/1) was not proved and that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month?"
Secondly: "Whether the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding the suit to be barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958?"
Thirdly: "Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, and if so, to what extent?"
CONSIDERATION ON THE POINTS OF DETERMINATION
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, evidence, documentary record, written submissions, and the impugned judgment.
Point of Determination No. 1: Whether the Trial Court erred in not RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.10 of 18 proving the rent deed and in holding the rate of rent to be Rs. 2,500/- per month
11. The first and second Points of Determination are substantially intertwined, the second being a necessary consequence of the first, and are accordingly considered together. The main question before this Court in the present appeal is whether the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month is perverse or contrary to evidence on record.
11.1 The rent deed (Ex. PW1/1) is the main document through which the plaintiffs sought to establish both the execution of the tenancy and its terms, including the rate of rent. The main question mark on this document is the fact that the stamp paper on which it is written was purchased on 15.01.2004 as is clear from the endorsement on the stamp paper itself whereas the deed purports to be dated 01.04.2003. A document cannot be executed on a stamp paper that did not exist on the date it purports to bear.
11.2 The abovediscussed infirmity in the rent deed, assumes relevance and signifance in the context of testimony of PW-1 coming out in cross-examination. PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Dagar, in cross- examination, stated that no writing was made when the suit property was handed over to the defendant and further could not say that there was no rent agreement executed between them. In other words, the very person who executed the rent deed admitted in court that the RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.11 of 18 property was handed over without any writing. This admission clearly casts doubt on the authenticity of Ex. PW1/1. If no writing was made at the time of delivery of possession in April 2003, the document bearing that date is evidently prepared subsequently, which is confirmed by the stamp paper date of 15.01.2004. PW-1 further admitted in further cross-examination that the rent deed was signed in January 2004, thereby directly corroborating the stamp paper date and conclusively establishing that the deed was backdated.
11.3 Furthermore, there was no mention of the factum in the plaint regarding the rent deed being executed in January 2004 though admittedly, the tenancy has started from April 2003. There is no explanation as to why the rent deed was not executed at the time of giving of the possession in April 2003, though noteably in para no.4 of the plaint, the pleading in this regard is worded as 'by virtue of the agreement / rent deed dated 1st April, 2003, plaintiff no.1 gave on lease the said piece of land for the purpose of running dog shelter on the said land to the defendant, for a period 11 months.' The said pleading and even the rent deed nowhere clears the position that the rent deed is executed in January 2004 though the tenancy has started w.e.f. April 2003.
11.4 Sh. Ajay Gupta (PW-3), being attesting witness, was listed as a witness to prove the execution and rate of rent. His affidavit for examination-in-chief was filed. However, he was never put up for RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.12 of 18 examination-in-chief as well as for cross-examination, which means his evidence affidavit cannot be read in evidence. An affidavit merely filed and not tendered before the court is of no evidentiary significance. Further, Sh. Ajay Gupta filed an application dated 03.06.2005 specifically averring that plaintiff no. 1 had forced him into signing the affidavit and that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month. Even if presuming that the said witness was not coming forward to give his testimony, the plaintiff could have summoned the witness through the process of the Court. Furthermore, even on summoning the witness through the Court, plaintiff had the choice of seeking leave of the Court to permit him to put questions to the said witness which might be put in the cross-examination by the adverse party.
11.5 As regards the proof of the execution of the deed, under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a document required by law to be attested can only be proved by calling at least one attesting witness if any attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence. While a rent deed is not a document compulsorily required to be attested, the deed in question bears the signature of Sh. Ajay Gupta as attesting witness and of the deceased defendant Sh. Vishwant Kumar. Though the original rent deed was lost when it was sent for impounding and deficient duty has been paid on the document, mere payment of deficient stamp duty perse does not make the document admissible in evidence. Plaintiff had all the opportunity to prove the document by other means as per law including leading of the RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.13 of 18 secondary evidence. The same was not done by the plaintiff. Thus, the identity of the signatures of the defendant on the rent deed was never established in evidence. The plaintiffs thus failed to prove execution of the rent deed in the manner required by law when the execution was specifically and categorically denied by the defendants.
11.6 The appellants sought to fulfil the gap left by the unproved rent deed for the purpose of proving the monthly rent through the bank statements (Ex. PW1/2). The bank officer of HDFC Bank was listed as a witness but was never produced before the Trial Court. Even if the bank statements are read at face value, they do not in themselves establish the rate of rent to be Rs. 7,500/- per month as opposed to payments of advance rent at Rs. 2,500/- per month. The total amount received from the defendant, as reflected in the bank statements, is Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 7,500/- in April 2003 + Rs. 7,500/- in May 2003 + Rs. 7,500/- in June 2003 + Rs. 7,500/- in August 2003 + Rs. 30,000/- in December 2003). This aggregate of Rs. 60,000/- is divisible by Rs. 2,500/-, covering 24 months of rent at that rate. The defendants' explanation that plaintiff no. 1 used to periodically show dire need and demand advance payments, each of which was Rs. 7,500/- (being three months' advance at Rs. 2,500/-), can't be doubted, in the present factual matrix when there is no other evidence indicating that monthly rent was Rs.7,500/- per month. Where the direct document meant to establish the rate of rent has been found to be unreliable, the bank statements alone, which can equally be read on both sides, cannot be read as establishing the higher rate.RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.14 of 18
11.7 The appellants also relied on the Stamp Collector's adjudication dated 26.05.2017, of the rate of rent at Rs. 7,500/- per month. This reliance is misplaced. The Stamp Collector's adjudication for the purpose of levying deficient stamp duty is not an adjudication of disputed facts in a civil suit; it is a fiscal exercise confined to assessing the duty payable on the basis of the contents of the document. The Stamp Collector does not conduct a trial, examine witnesses, or determine the truthfulness of the rate stated in the document.
11.8 The contention that the defendants chose not to lead evidence and that the plaintiffs' evidence went unrebutted is factually incorrect. The defendants did lead evidence through DW-1 Sh. Kunal Kumar. DW-1 specifically denied that the rent deed was executed by his late father, reiterated the rate of rent as Rs. 2,500/- per month, and deposed about the advance-payment arrangement. He was cross- examined by the plaintiffs. The fact that the defendants did not produce additional independent witnesses does not mean their evidence is non-existent. The burden in the present suit lay upon the plaintiffs to prove their case; the defendants were only required to rebut the case if the plaintiffs had discharged the initial burden. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the plaintiffs have manifestly failed to discharge even this primary burden.RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.15 of 18
11.9 Point of Determination No. 1 is therefore decided against the appellants/plaintiffs.
Point of Determination No. 2: Bar under Section 50, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
12. Having upheld the finding that the rate of rent is Rs. 2,500/- per month, the consequential effect is the suit is barred under Section 50 of the DRCA. The Civil Court therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction of the defendants and to pass a decree of possession, arrears of rent, or mesne profits in favour of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court's finding that the suit is barred under Section 50 of the DRCA is accordingly upheld. Point of Determination No. 2 is decided against the appellants/plaintiffs.
Point of Determination No. 3: Entitlement of the appellants/plaintiffs to any relief
13. Having held that the rate of rent is Rs. 2,500/- per month and the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit by reason of Section 50 of the DRCA, the question of the plaintiffs' entitlement to any of the reliefs claimed in the suit requires no further discussion or deliberation. Once the jurisdictional bar is attracted, the Civil Court is without authority to pass any decree of possession or arrears. The plaintiffs are at liberty to seek their remedies, if any, before the appropriate forum under the DRCA in accordance with the law.RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.16 of 18
13.1 Though, the additional contentions have been raised by the defendants regarding the suit property not being identified by a site plan and the plaintiffs' failure to establish ownership through a title document, however, given the finding that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court on account of the jurisdictional bar, these questions require no further discussion or deliberation. Point of Determination No. 3 is accordingly decided against the appellants/plaintiffs.
RELIEF
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and the findings, on all the Points of Determination, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 593241/2016 titled as "Gaurav Dagar and Another vs. Urvashi Kumar and Others". The appellants have failed to demonstrate any ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment. The present appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 is hereby confirmed and upheld.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.17 of 18
17. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. File of the appeal be consigned to the record room. A copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Record (if requisitioned) be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.Digitally signed by Munish
Munish Bansal
Announced in the Open Court. Bansal Date:
2026.05.08
Dated 08.05.2026 16:30:20 +0530
(Munish Bansal)
District Judge-03, South District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
RCA DJ 50/2019 Page No.18 of 18