Delhi District Court
Shujauddin vs Mohd Taqi on 30 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS DJ No. 165/2022
CNR No. - DLCT01-002720-2022
Sh. Shujauddin
S/o Late Mohd. Farooq
R/o 404-B, Gali Matiamahal,
Jama Masjid, Delhi- 110006 ........ Plaintiff
Versus
Mohd. Taqi
S/o Late Mohd. Suleman
R/o 404, Gali Matiamahal,
Jama Masjid, Delhi- 110006 ....... Defendant
Date of Institution: 14.02.2022
Date of conclusion
of Final Arguments: 20.02.2026
Date of Judgment: 30.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant, seeking following reliefs viz.;
CS DJ 165/2022 1 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to:
(a) Pass decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in respect of the suit property ie. bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi more shown RED in the site plan;
(b) Pass a decree for recovery of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant as use and occupation charges for the months of Nov. 2021 to January, 2022 for unauthorized and occupation of the suit property i.e. bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi,
(c) Pass a decree of damages/mesne profits in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 10,000/- or at such rate as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper for unauthorized use and occupation of the Suit Premises for the pendente lite and future till the vacation of the Suit Premises i.e. bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi;
(d) Cost of the suit be also awarded.
(e) Any such other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, in brief, are as under:-
(a) That the present suit has been filed for recovery of possession and damages of part portion of Second Floor and part portion of Third Floor of the property bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi more specifically shown in RED colour in site plan annexed with the plaint (hereinafter referred to as "suit property").
CS DJ 165/2022 2 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
(b) That the plaintiff is owner of the suit property by way of registered Sale deed dated 08.06.1989 registered as document No.3457, in Addl. Book No.I, Vol. NO.5103, on pages 103 to 107 registered before the Sub- Registrar, New Delhi.
(c) That the defendant was allowed to live there as licencee out of love and affection being relative of the plaintiff. Due to some unwanted acts and conducts of the defendant and his family members, the plaintiff was no longer interested to continue his licence and also required the suit property for use and occupation for himself and his family members.
The plaintiff accordingly terminated the licence of the defendant w.e.f. 31.10.2021 vide Notice dated 16.09.2021 sent by registered post.
(d) That the defendant, however, failed to vacate and handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Here, it is worth to state that the said premises is being occupied by the defendant with his family members namely Mohd. Salim, Mohd. Waseem, Modh. Nadeem, Mohd. Rehan, Mohd. Kamran and Asma Begum.
(e) That the plaintiff states that until October 2021, no licence fee was demanded from the defendant due to love and affection. However, from November 2021 onward, the plaintiff claims use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month, on the grounds that the defendant's possession of the suit property is unauthorized. The defendant is therefore liable to pay these charges to the plaintiff until the property is vacated.
(f) Hence, the present suit.
CS DJ 165/2022 3 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this Suit, appearance was put on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant.
4. In the written statement, the defendant took the following preliminary objections:-
(a) That, if the plaintiff's version is accepted, the suit is barred under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 as the suit property is situated in a notified slum area, and no suit or proceeding can be instituted without prior permission from the competent authority.
(b) That the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
(c) That, without prejudice, it is submitted that the defendant has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
5. On merit, the defendant in the written statement inter alia pleaded that;
(a) That the parties to the suit are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Sulaiman, who was the defendant's father and the plaintiff's grandfather.
(b) That Late Sh. Sulaiman, during his lifetime, acquired a plot of land from its previous owner around 1947 and constructed a structure on it using his own funds. It is submitted that he passed away in the 1980s, leaving behind four sons as his legal heirs, the particulars of whom are set out below:
a. Mohd. Rafiq (expired) survived by one son dead, Mohd. Shakil, Mohd. Hanif, Shameem (daughter).
CS DJ 165/2022 4 of 21
Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi
Judgment dated 30.04.2026
b. Mohd. Islam (expired) survived by wife Laiqan Begum, Mohd.
Anees (son), and 5 daughters- Shama Parveen, Nasreen Begum, Ruksana Begum, Suraiya, Shagufta.
c. Mohd. Farooq (expired) survived by Shujauddin (son/ plaintiff), 9 daughters.
d. Mohd. Taqi (son/ defendant).
(c) That plaintiff is the son of Mohd. Farooq, and his status is not better than that of the defendant herein. It is submitted that Late Mohd.
Sulaiman was the owner of the suit property and the entire construction thereon was raised by him.
(d) That during his lifetime, Mohd. Sulaiman had made a gift deed qua the suit property, by virtue of which he had divided the suit property in favour of his legal heirs in the following manner:
a. First floor to Mohd. Farooq and Mohd. Rafiq
b. Second floor to Mohd. Taqi and Mohd. Islam The roof rights
were common.
(e) That said arrangement was made in the 1980s and has since attained finality, having remained in effect for over 40 years. It is submitted that neither the arrangement nor the gift deed has ever been challenged by any person; accordingly, the answering defendant is the owner of the portion in which he resides along with his family members.
(f) That the plaintiff, who is the defendant's real nephew, has instituted the present suit on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The sale deed placed on record by the plaintiff is wholly forged, as the purported Mehmood Jahan or her predecessors were never the owners of the suit CS DJ 165/2022 5 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026 property. It is further noteworthy that although the said sale deed bears a registration date of 1989, the plaintiff has taken no action on its basis for approximately 33 years.
(g) The suit of the plaintiff as such is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Plaintiff thereupon filed the replication to the written statement of the defendant wherein he denied the case of the defendant and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 25.11.2022:-
(1) Whether the defendant is in permissive possession of the suit property i.e. portions at second and third floor of property bearing no. 404, Gali Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan as a licensee under the plaintiff ? OPP (2) Whether the aforesaid licence of the defendant has been terminated by the plaintiff w.e.f 31.10.2021 vide legal notice dated 16.09.2021? OPP (3) Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 ? OPD (4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ? OPD (5) Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit property as an owner thereof in terms of gift deed of Late Mohd. Suleman? OPD (6) Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of possession of the suit property in his favour? OPP CS DJ 165/2022 6 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026 (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the user charges in respect of the suit property to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- for the period November 2021 to January 2022 ? OPP (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future damages/mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP (10) Relief ?
8. During the trial of this Suit, the plaintiff Sh. Shujauddin examined himself as PW1 in support of his case. Sh. Shujauddin has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith following documents:-
(i) Ex.PW1/1: Site plan
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 (OSR): Sale deed dated 08.06.1989
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 (Colly): Legal Notice dated 16.09.2021, postal receipt and delivery/ tracking report.
9. PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. During Cross- examination of PW1 following documents were exhibited/ marked:-
(i) Ex.PW1/DX: Purchase voucher dated 20.10.1987 in favour of Mohd. Farukh (father of the plaintiff).
(ii) MarkPW1/D1: Hibanama/ Gift deed dated 03.01.1974
(iii) MarkPW1/D2: Photocopy of passport of Smt. Hanida Begum
(iv) MarkPW1/D3: Photocopy of passport of Mohd. Waseem
(v) MarkPW1/D4: Photocopy of passport of Mohd. Nadeem
(vi) MarkPW1/D5: Photocopy of birth certificate of Mohd. Saleem
(vii) MarkPW1/D6: Photocopy of birth certificate of Mohd. Nadeem
(viii) MarkPW1/D7: Photocopy of birth certificate of Mohd. Rehan
(ix) MarkPW1/D8: Photocopy of birth certificate of Kamran CS DJ 165/2022 7 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
(x) MarkPW1/D9: Photocopy of cement receipt
(xi) MarkPW1/D10: Photocopy of electricity bill in the name of Mohd. Islam
(xii) MarkPW1/D11: Photocopy of loan application made by Mohd. Salim
(xiii) MarkPW1/D12: Certified copy of evidence affidavit of plaintiff (tendered in another suit having Suit No. 160/2022 as PW1)
(xiv) MarkPW1/D13: Certified copy of cross-examination of PW1 conducted in Suit No. 160/2022
(xv) MarkPW1/D14 (Colly): Certified copy of remaining records of Suit No. 160/2022
10. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. PE was thereafter closed vide order dated 03.06.2024 and the Suit was posted for the defendant's evidence.
11. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant namely Sh. Mohd. Taqi examined himself as DW1. During the examination-in-chief, DW1 Sh. Mohd. Taqi had deposed in line with the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A alongwith following documents:-
(i) Ex.DW1/1 (OSR): Hibanama/ Gift deed dated 03.01.1974
(ii) Ex.DW1/2 (OSR): Copy of passport of Smt. Hanida Begum
(iii) Ex.DW1/3 (OSR): Copy of passport of Mohd. Waseem
(iv) Ex.DW1/4 (OSR): Copy of passport of Mohd. Nadeem
(v) Ex.DW1/5 (OSR): Copy of birth certificate of Mohd. Saleem
(vi) Ex.DW1/6 (OSR): Copy of birth certificate of Mohd. Nadeem
(vii) Ex.DW1/7 (OSR): Copy of birth certificate of Mohd. Rehan CS DJ 165/2022 8 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
(viii) Ex.DW1/8 (OSR): Copy of birth certificate of Kamran
(ix) Ex.DW1/9 (OSR): Copy of cement receipt
12. DW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. No other DW was examined. DE was accordingly closed vide order dated 04.07.2025 and thereafter the suit was listed for final arguments.
13. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, this Court heard counsel for both parties. It is noted that when the matter was listed for final arguments, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 was filed on behalf of the defendant. The Court directed that the said application be considered along with the final arguments and decided together with the suit.
14. I have heard the contentions of both sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUES NO. 1, 5 AND 6 (1) Whether the defendant is in permissive possession of the suit property i.e. portions at second and third floor of property bearing no. 404, Gali Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan as a licensee under the plaintiff ? OPP (5) Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit property as an owner thereof in terms of gift deed of Late Mohd. Suleman? OPD (6) Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD
15. All the three issues, issues No. 1, 5 and 6 are taken up together as they involve common discussion.
16. Onus to prove issue No. 1 was on the plaintiff whereas to prove issues No. 5 and 6 was on the defendant.
CS DJ 165/2022 9 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
17. Plaintiff's suit is for possession based on his title. Plaintiff's case is that he is owner of the suit property by way of registered Sale deed dated 08.06.1989 registered as document No.3457, in Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No. 5103, on pages 103 to 107 registered before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi (Ex.PW1/2).
18. The plaintiff's further case is that the defendant was allowed to live there as licencee out of love and affection being relative of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff was no longer interested to continue his licence and also required the suit property for use and occupation for himself and his family members, the plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendant w.e.f. 31.10.2021 vide Notice dated 16.09.2021 sent by registered post (Ex.PW1/3 (colly)). However, since the defendant failed to vacate and handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
19. On the contrary, the defendant contends that Late Sh. Sulaiman, who was the defendant's father and the plaintiff's grandfather, had purchased a plot of land from its previous owner around the year 1947 and subsequently constructed a structure on it using his own resources (that is, the suit property). It is further stated that Sh. Mohd. Sulaiman executed a Hibanama/gift deed dated 03.01.1974 (Ex. DW1/1) concerning the suit property, through which he apportioned the property among his legal heirs, thereby conferring ownership of the suit property upon the defendant in accordance with the said Hibanama/gift deed.
20. In addition, the defendant claims ownership of the suit property by way of adverse possession, asserting that his possession has been continuous, open, and hostile to the plaintiff for several years.
21. In order to establish his ownership over the suit property, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and placed on record the original Sale Deed dated CS DJ 165/2022 10 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026 08.06.1989, registered as Document No. 3457 in Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 5103, pages 103 to 107, before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi (Ex. PW1/2).
22. The said Sale Deed was executed by Smt. Mehmood Jahan Begum, wife of Sh. Abdul Khaliq, in favour of Sh. Shujauddin, son of Sh. Mohd. Farooq (the plaintiff), whereby she transferred the first and second floors, along with the roof and all constructions, of property bearing M.C. No. XI/404, situated at Gali Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid (now bearing M.C. No. 404-B), to the plaintiff.
23. It is pertinent to note that, unlike a gift deed--which requires attestation by at least two witnesses under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882--a sale deed does not require attesting witnesses for its execution. Consequently, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandates examination of an attesting witness to prove execution, is not applicable to a sale deed governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (reliance placed on Smt. Bayanabai Kaware v. Rajendra S/o Baburao Dhote, (2018) 1 SCC 585).
24. Moreover, a registered document carries a presumption of valid execution and is, prima facie, legally enforceable. The burden, therefore, lies upon the party challenging such a document to rebut this presumption (reliance placed on Prem Singh & Ors. v. Birbal & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353).
25. It, however, is well settled that proof of due execution of Ex. PW1/2 does not, by itself, establish the title of the plaintiff's vendor; such title, if specifically disputed, must be independently proved.
26. In the present case, during cross-examination, DW1 deposed that he was unable to admit or deny whether the suit property was owned by Smt. Mehmood Jahan Begum.
CS DJ 165/2022 11 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has successfully established his ownership over the suit property, having purchased the same vide Ex. PW1/2, i.e., the Sale Deed dated 08.06.1989, from Smt. Mehmood Jahan Begum, wife of Sh. Abdul Khaliq.
28. During final arguments, learned counsel for the defendant contended that, by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 08.06.1989 (Ex. PW1/2), the plaintiff became the owner of property bearing No. 404-B, Gali Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi, whereas in the present suit, the plaintiff seeks possession of property bearing No. 404, Gali Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi. On this basis, learned counsel sought to cast doubt on the very identity of the suit property.
29. The relevant portions of cross-examination of PW1 are reproduced herein below;
"I have filed the present suit against my real Chacha (Paternal Uncle). My uncle is residing in the property bearing no. 404, gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi for the last above 60-70 years. It is correct that father of Mohd. Taqi namely Mohd. Suleman who was also my grand-father was residing in the above mentioned property even prior to Mohd. Taqi. (Vol. He was residing with my father). My father had expired about 20 years back. I am aged about 65 years.
Q. Do you agree that even prior to your birth, your uncle Taqi, your father and your grand-father along with other family members were residing in property bearing no. 404, gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi? Ans. It is correct. (Vol. My father had brought them in the said property as the tenancy was in the name of my father)...
CS DJ 165/2022 12 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
...The property bearing No. 404 is having two parts. There are shops on the ground floor of property bearing No. 404, Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi...
Q. Can you tell what is the area and dimensions of part A of property No. 404, Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi and part B of property No. 404, Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi ?
Ans. I cannot tell (Vol. I can tell only about my portion of 404 which ad measures about 98-99 sq. yards). My portion falls in part B of property No. 404, Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi...
...The area of property bearing No. 404 is much bigger than the area shown in Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/1. (Vol. My portion is 404B).
It is wrong to suggest that I have not placed any municipal document on Court record to show that the property is allegedly having municipal number as 404B. It is wrong to suggest that I have not filed any mutation document in my favour on Court record show that the municipal number is 404B. (Vol. I can produce house tax receipt paid by me to Municipal Corporation)."
30. Accordingly, from the cross-examination of PW1, it emerges that property bearing No. 404, Gali Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi comprises two portions, namely Part A and Part B. He categorically deposed that he is the owner of Part B of property bearing No. 404. PW1 has also placed on record the site plan of the suit property, shown in red, exhibited as Ex. PW1/1.
31. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has not filed any site plan on record. During his cross-examination, DW-1 was confronted with site plan Ex. PW1/1 and asked to identify the portion in his occupation shown in red colour therein. In response, DW-1 stated that he was unable to understand the site plan.
CS DJ 165/2022 13 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
However, he deposed that he is in possession of one room and one bathroom on the second floor of the suit property, as well as one room and a kitchen on the third floor. His deposition describing the portions under his occupation is largely consistent with the site plan Ex. PW1/1 and, in any event, supports the finding that the suit property corresponds to property bearing No. 404-B.
32. Against this backdrop, the defendant's version may now be examined.
33. The relevant portions of cross-examination of DW1 are reproduced herein below;
"...I do not have any document to show that property is owned by Mohd Sulaiman. Vol. I only have the document of Property i.e. Hiba Nama which is exhibited as Ex.DW1/1. I have stated in my affidavit in respect of ownership of Mohd Sulaiman on the basis of my knowledge as I was told by my father (Late Mohd Sulaiman). As per my knowledge the property was purchased by Mohd. Sulaiman from one Ratan Lal Seth...I do not pay house tax of the suit property. I also do not know who is paying the house tax of the suit property..."
34. Thus, the defendant has failed to establish the foundational fact that Late Sh. Sulaiman was the owner of the suit property. He has admitted that his assertion in this regard is based merely on his personal knowledge, allegedly derived from his father. The defendant has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the ownership of Late Sh. Sulaiman over the suit property. In these circumstances, the question of execution of the Hibanama/gift deed dated 03.01.1974 (Ex. DW1/1) by Late Sh. Sulaiman in respect of the suit property does not arise. The defendant has also filed on record certain documents (Ex.DW1/2 Ex.DW1/8), having the address of the suit property. It may be noted CS DJ 165/2022 14 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026 that merely having certain documents (passport, birth certificate etc) in his/ her name is not an assertion of title as even tenants or licensees or permissive users may also apply for such documents.
35. As already observed, the defendant has also taken the plea of adverse possession, claiming ownership of the suit property on the ground that his possession has been continuous, open, and hostile to the plaintiff for several years.
36. From a reading of the cross-examination of PW-1 (reproduced hereinabove), it emerges that the suit property was earlier under the tenancy of the plaintiff's father, and all family members, including the defendant, who is the plaintiff's real paternal uncle (chacha), were residing in property bearing No. 404/404-B. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the suit property vide Sale Deed dated 08.06.1989 (Ex. PW1/2). However, the plaintiff did not disturb the defendant's possession, as he is a close relative, and permitted him to continue residing in the suit property.
37. It is well settled that permissive possession cannot mature into adverse possession. Where the relationship between the parties is fiduciary in nature, the possession of one party cannot, in the ordinary course, be presumed to be adverse to the other. The acts relied upon to establish adverse possession must be clear, unequivocal, and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner. Mere occupation by relatives out of affection or goodwill does not constitute adverse possession, as the legal possession continues to remain with the owner, and limitation does not run against him in such circumstances.
38. In view thereof, the defendant, being the real paternal uncle of the plaintiff and having remained in possession of the suit property with the CS DJ 165/2022 15 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026 permission of the plaintiff, cannot successfully set up a plea of adverse possession based merely on long and continuous occupation.
39. In light of above discussion, this Court concludes that the plaintiff has successfully established his ownership over the suit property and that the defendant is in permissive possession thereof. Conversely, the defendant has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit property as its owner under the alleged gift deed of Late Mohd. Sulaiman or that he has perfected the title by way of adverse possession.
40. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, whereas Issues No. 5 and 6 are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ? OPD
41. Onus to prove issue No. 4 was on the defendant.
42. In a suit for possession based on the plaintiff's title, the cause of action accrues to him when the defendant sets up a title adverse to him, that is to say, when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff (Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963). In the present case, it is the plaintiff's case that the defendant's possession remained permissive in nature (as a licensee) until possession of the suit property was demanded. It is only upon issuance of the legal notice dated 16.09.2021 (Ex. PW1/3) and the defendant's refusal to comply therewith that the cause of action for recovery of possession based on title arose in favour of the plaintiff, and the suit instituted thereafter is therefore within limitation.
43. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ 165/2022 16 of 21
Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi
Judgment dated 30.04.2026
ISSUE NO. 3
(3) Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 ? OPD
44. Onus to prove issue No. 3 was on the defendant.
45. The defendant has taken a plea that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956.
46. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Punnu Ram and Others v. Chiranji Lal Gupta (AIR 1982 Delhi 431), Giri Raj through LRs v. Deepak Gupta & Ors . (RSA 151/2012, decided on 12.09.2013), and Satender Jain v. Satya Narain Sanjiv Gupta HUF (RSA 139/2019, decided on 09.09.2021), contended that the provisions of Section 19 of the Act are applicable only to tenants and not to occupants in general.
47. Hon'ble Delhi High Court while placing reliance on Punnu Ram supra, in Satender Jain supra held as under;
"29. On the basis of the above legal position, especially in view of the decision in Punna Ram (Supra), it is concluded that the provisions of Section 19 of the Slums Act would be applicable only to tenants in law and not to occupiers generally. The heirs of the original tenant would thus not be entitled to protection under Section 19."
48. In the present case, the defendant does not claim to be a tenant of the plaintiff. His case is that he is in possession of the suit property as its owner under the alleged gift deed executed by Late Mohd. Sulaiman, or, in the alternative, that he has perfected title by way of adverse possession. In these circumstances, this CS DJ 165/2022 17 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026 Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff's suit cannot be held to be barred by the provisions of Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.
49. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO. 2 AND 7 (2) Whether the aforesaid licence of the defendant has been terminated by the plaintiff w.e.f 31.10.2021 vide legal notice dated 16.09.2021? OPP (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of possession of the suit property in his favour? OPP
50. Onus to prove issues No. 2 and 7 was on the plaintiff.
51. As already held that the plaintiff has successfully established his ownership over the suit property and that the defendant is in permissive possession thereof.
52. The PW1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he terminated the licence of the defendant with effect from 31.10.2021 vide notice dated 16.09.2021, sent by his counsel through speedpost on 18.09.2021 which was duly delivered to the defendant on 20.09.2021. Legal Notice dated 16.09.2021, postal receipt and delivery/ tracking report are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/ 3.
53. Thus, this Court holds that the defendant's licence stood terminated by the plaintiff with effect from 31.10.2021 vide legal notice dated 16.09.2021. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property in his favour.
54. Accordingly, Issues No. 2 and 7 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUES NO. 8 AND 9
CS DJ 165/2022 18 of 21
Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi
Judgment dated 30.04.2026
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the user charges in respect of the suit property to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- for the period November 2021 to January 2022 ? OPP (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future damages/mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
55. Onus to prove issues No. 8 and 9 was on the plaintiff.
56. In view of finding given qua issue no. 7, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover user charges in respect of the suit property from the defendant w.e.f. 01.11.2021.
57. The plaintiff besides his oral testimony has not brought on record any evidence proving the amount sought as user charges/ mesne profits/ damages per month. PW1 in his cross-examination deposed to the effect that [A]t present the [adjoining] properties are fetching rent from Rs. 8000/-, Rs. 10000/- and upto Rs. 40000/- for the shops at ground floor and upper floors.
58. It is well established that in the absence of any direct evidence that could assist the court in determining the reasonable amount, the court may exercise its judicial discretion to determine the amount of mesne profits/ damages and some amount of guesswork is always involved in determining the same. It is trite, that the exercise of this judicial discretion should not be arbitrary and must confirm to sound judicial principles.
59. It is a matter of common knowledge, duly noticed by courts from time to time, that rental values of properties--particularly in urban and metropolitan areas such as Delhi--have witnessed a steep and substantial rise. In the present case, apart from his oral testimony, the plaintiff has not placed any cogent material on record to substantiate his claim of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards user charges/mesne profits CS DJ 165/2022 19 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026 for the suit property. However, considering that the suit property comprises one room, one bathroom, and one kitchen on the second floor, along with one room on the third floor (as reflected in site plan Ex. PW1/1), and is being used for residential purposes, it can reasonably be inferred that the property would have fetched a monthly rent of approximately Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly, it would be just and proper to award user charges/mesne profits to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month in respect of the suit property. In coming to this conclusion, this Court is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled M/s M.C. Agarwal HUF vs. M/s. Sahara India & Ors.; 2011 (183) DLT 105.
60. The plaintiff would therefore be entitled to recover user charges of Rs. 24,000/- (calculated @ Rs. 8000/- per month), for the period November 2021 to January 2022.
61. The plaintiff is further entitled to pendente lite and future damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month until the date of handing over possession of the suit property.
62. The plaintiff shall be entitled to an enhancement of damages/mesne profits by 10% upon the expiry of six weeks from the date of the decree, with a further increase of 10% after every three years thereafter, until the defendant vacates the suit property.
63. Issues No. 8 and 9 are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF
64. As a net result of the aforesaid findings, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in following terms;
CS DJ 165/2022 20 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026
(a) The plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of possession in respect of suit property bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi as shown in RED in the site plan Ex.PW1/1. The defendant is directed to hand over the actual possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within six weeks of passing of decree.
(b) The plaintiff is also held entitled to a decree of user charges/ mesne profits/ damages @ Rs 8,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.2021 till the handing over of the actual possession of the suit property.
(c) The plaintiff shall be entitled to an enhancement of mesne profits by 10% upon the expiry of six weeks from the date of the decree, with a further increase of 10% after every three years thereafter, until the defendant vacates the suit property.
(d) Cost of the suit.
65. Application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 is consequently dismissed.
66. The Reader shall prepare the decree sheet as per this judgment, after adjustment regarding such court-fees by the plaintiff. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on this 30th day of April, 2026. This Judgment consists of 21 number of signed pages. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.04.30 17:04:28 +0530 (Abhishek Srivastava) District Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi CS DJ 165/2022 21 of 21 Shujauddin Vs. Mohd. Taqi Judgment dated 30.04.2026