Delhi District Court
Ash Mohammed vs Mohd Illyas on 17 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
ACJ-CUM-ARC-CUM-CCJ : NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Presided by - SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI, DJS
DLNE030011292019
CS No. 679/2019
Ash Mohammed
S/o Late Sh. Subrati,
R/o H.No. F-459, Gali No. 19,
Khajuri Khas, Village Mirpur Turk,
Karawal Nagar Road,
Delhi-110094.
...........PLAINTIFF
Versus
Mohd. Illyas,
W/o Late Sh. Mohd. Sharif
R/o H.No. 362, Gali No.5,
New Mustafabad, Delhi-110094
Also At:
Shop situated at property No. F-484,
Ground Floor, F-Block, Gali No.19,
Khasra No. 109, Khajuri Khas,
Village Mirpur Turk, Karawal Nagar Road
Delhi-110094
........DEFENDANT
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 1 of 23
Digitally signed
ANIMESH by ANIMESH
BHASKAR
BHASKAR MANI
TRIPATHI
MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17
16:45:37 +0530
Date of Institution : 10/11.10.2019
Date of reserving the judgment : 09.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 17.11.2025
Decision : Partly Decreed
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT
OF RS. 17,100/-, MESNE PROFIT/DAMAGES AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT :-
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and interest in respect of a shop situated on the ground floor measuring 7 ft. × 11 ft. forming part of property bearing No. F-484, Khasra No. 109, measuring 100 sq. yards situated at Village Mirpur Turk, in the abadi of Khajuri Khas, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property').
Pleadings of the plaintiff:-
1.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property and that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the said shop for commercial use at a monthly rent of ₹450/- excluding electricity charges. The defendant has allegedly been a habitual defaulter and is in arrears of rent for the period 01.08.2016 to 31.08.2019, amounting to ₹17,100/-.
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 2 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:45:46 +0530 1.2 The tenancy was stated to be month-to-month and was terminated through legal notice dated 19.09.2019. The defendant was called upon to vacate the premises, but despite service of notice on both his residential address and the shop, he failed to hand over possession.
1.3 On 04.10.2019 and 05.10.2019, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate, but the defendant continued in occupation, which according to the plaintiff became unauthorized after 05.10.2019. It is further alleged that on 07.10.2019, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant might attempt to create third-party interest in the shop.
Hence, the present suit was filed.
Pleadings of the defendants:-
2. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant had appeared before the court and WS was filed separately on behalf of defendant. In the WS of defendant, he alleged that the documents i.e. GPA dated 05.06.1998, agreement to sell dated 05.06.1998 and will dated 05.06.1998 are unregistered and according to will dated 05.06.1998, the owner of the suit property is one Chand Mohd. In the WS of defendant, defendant alleged that the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as same is not lying the jurisdiction and the same has not been properly valued and the plaintiffs are not owners of the property. Therefore the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
Issues:-
3. After completion of pleadings, issues were settled and from pleadings following issues were framed:
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 3 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI MANI TRIPATHI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:45:56 +0530
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession, as prayed for? OPP 1A. Whether there is cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP 1B. Whether the suit is covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of arrears, as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, then for what rate, upon what amount and for what period, as prayed for ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit, as prayed for? OPP
5. Relief.
Plaintiff Evidence: -
4. After settlement of issues the matter was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence. In order to prove their case, plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
PW1 also relied upon certain documents which are as under :-
Photocopy of GPA dated 05.06.1998, Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) Photocopy of Agreement to sell dated 05.06.1998, Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 4 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:46:07 +0530 Photocopy of Payment receipt dated 05.06.1998, Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) Photocopy of Affidavit dated 05.06.1998, Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) Photocopy of Deed of Will dated 05.06.1998, Ex. PW- 1/5 (OSR) Site Plan, Ex. PW-1/6 Photocopy of five Rent Receipts Ex. PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/11 (QSR) Office copy of notice dated 19.09.2019 Ex. PW-1/12 Postal receipts Ex. PW-1/13 and Ex. PW-1/14
5. During cross-examination, Plaintiff No. 1 deposed that he is educated up to 7th class and cannot read, write, or understand English.
He stated that he runs a tyre puncture shop and purchased the suit property from Chand Mohammad about 35 years ago, though he does not remember the date or amount of purchase. He affirmed that the agreement to sell (Ex. PW1/2) was signed by him after going through its contents, which he stated are true and correct. He admitted that he did not take vacant physical possession of the suit property at the time of purchase and does not remember who was present at the time of execution or the names of the witnesses to documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5.
6. He admitted that there was a shop within the 100 sq. yard property purchased by him and denied that the title documents do not pertain to the suit property. He stated that the previous owner, Chand CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 5 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:46:17 +0530 Mohammad, is still alive and denied the suggestion that he lacks locus standi to file the present suit. He admitted that rent receipts Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/11 do not bear the defendant's signatures but those of the defendant's son, who runs the shop presently. He deposed that the suit property was originally let out to the defendant by Chand Mohammad, though he cannot tell when that letting occurred.
7. He denied knowledge of any rent deposit proceedings or petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act filed by the defendant and admitted executing a registered GPA dated 15.06.2015 in favor of his brother Naeem Ahmad (Ex. PW1/D1). He confirmed its contents as correct. He further deposed that the construction on the suit property is over 40 years old, with a room on the first floor occupied by Naeem Ahmad. He admitted that the property is in a dilapidated condition and that its floor lies approximately two feet below road level. He also admitted that the title documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5 do not bear any municipal number and that there is a correction at point A on GPA Ex. PW1/1 where "484" is written, though he denied fabrication. He admitted the absence of his signature or thumb impression on the affidavit Ex. PW1/4 and of witnesses' signatures on the payment receipt Ex. PW1/3 and agreement to sell Ex. PW1/2.
8. He admitted that no sale deed was executed between him and Chand Mohammad after the GPA and agreement to sell dated 05.06.1998 and that he has not filed any suit for specific performance. He stated that at the time of purchase, the property was mostly vacant land with only a small front portion constructed. He did not prepare any site plan or know the exact direction of the property but denied CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 6 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:46:27 +0530 that the site plan Ex. PW1/6 is incorrect or contradictory. He does not remember when the present building was constructed or if he received any cheque of Rs. 16,650/- dated 24.09.2019 from the defendant. He denied the suggestions regarding the prevailing rent value, deposit of rent under Section 27 of the DRC Act, forgery or fabrication of documents, lack of locus standi, and falsity of his testimony.
9. Thereafter, vide statement of plaintiff PE was closed on 13.09.2024 and the matter was fixed for DE.
Defendants Evidence:-
10. Defendant examined himself as DW-1. He led his evidence by way of affidavit which is exhibited as Ex. DW1/A and he relied upon the documents as under:
Reply dt. 24.09.2019 Ex. DW1/1 Certified copy of cheque no. 100668 dt. 24.09.2019 for Rs.16,650/- Ex. DW1/2
Certified copy fo two postal receipts dt. 25.09.2019 Ex. DW1/3 (Colly.) Site plan Ex. DW1/4 Certified copy of order dt. 19.02.2020 alongwith petition Ex. DW1/5 (Colly.) Copy of all rent receipts Mark A (Colly., 03 pages) CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 7 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:46:37 +0530
11. During cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he is 10th class pass, can read English but cannot understand it. He deposed that his affidavit evidence was prepared by his counsel on his instructions, that he is aware of its contents, and that they are true and correct. He admitted to paying rent for the premises in question to the plaintiff, and stated that previously he paid rent to Chand Mohd. until 1998 for approximately 14-15 years, with the plaintiff subsequently issuing rent receipts (Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/11).
12. He denied the suggestion that he started paying rent to the plaintiff after learning that Chand Mohd. had sold the relevant property, including the shop in question, to the plaintiff. He deposed that he sent a cheque (Ex. DW1/2) to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent, admitted to receiving legal notice (Ex. PW1/12), and that he sent a reply (Ex. DW1/1) through his counsel upon his instructions.
13. DW-1 admitted that after 1998, Chand Mohd. did not claim rent for the shop in question, and that Naeem Ahmad also has not claimed any rent. He could not state the prevailing rate of rent of a similar shop in the locality and denied that it is Rs. 5,000/- per month. He further denied suggestions regarding illegality of possession after termination of tenancy, liability for use and occupation charges, lack of right to retain possession, failure to pay damages/use and occupation charges after termination, having filed an incorrect site plan, or deposing falsely.
14. Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed vide separate of defendant dt. 30.01.2025.
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 8 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:46:51 +0530 Appreciation of Evidence and Decision with reasons:-
15. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties.
The issue wise finding is as follows:-
Issue No. 1:
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession, as prayed for?" OPP
16. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove (i) existence of landlord-tenant relationship, (ii) valid termination of tenancy, and (iii) unauthorized occupation thereafter.
17. From the pleadings, the plaintiff has asserted ownership of the suit property bearing No. F-484, Khasra No. 109, situated at Village Mirpur Turk, and specifically pleaded that a shop measuring 7 ft × 11 ft on the ground floor was let out to the defendant at a rent of ₹450 per month for commercial use. The plaintiff's burden is limited to proving his better title vis-à-vis the defendant and demonstrating that the defendant was inducted as a tenant and continues in possession despite termination.
18. The defendant, in the written statement, has not denied that he is in occupation of the shop as tenant. Instead, he contests the plaintiff's ownership by alleging that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, namely the GPA, Agreement to Sell, and Will dated 05.06.1998, are unregistered and that the real owner is one Chand Mohammad. However, the defendant has not placed any document to show that he attorns to Chand Mohammad or that any rent was ever paid to him. He CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 9 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:47:01 +0530 has not produced any rent receipts or payment records in favour of any person other than the plaintiff.
19. During the cross-examination, DW-1 made categorical admissions regarding payment of rent to Chand Mohammad only till 1998 and after 1998, rent being paid to the plaintiff and Rent receipts Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/11 being issued by the plaintiff. These admissions demonstrate consistent attornment to the plaintiff for over two decades.
20. Where a tenant, over a long uninterrupted period, pays rent to a particular person without protest and the prior landlord does not claim rent thereafter, then there arises a clear, unequivocal landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Even if the defendant was originally inducted by Chand Mohammad in 1983, the defendant himself admits that he shifted attornment to the plaintiff in 1998 and continued paying rent to him thereafter. Once attornment is established through defendant's own admissions, the defendant is estopped from disputing the plaintiff's title, especially in a suit for possession, because the plaintiff needs to show only better title and not perfect ownership.
21. At this juncture, it is important to quote Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (erstwhile S 116 of Indian Evidence Act) provides: "No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property".
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 10 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:47:10 +0530
22. In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, it was held that the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under section 116 of the Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant.
23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Anita Jain vs. Praveen Kumar Jain 2023/DHC/000068, in a similar situation has held as under:
"The principle attracted herein is once a tenant always a tenant. The tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord or his successor-in-interest. Since the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had inducted the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent as a tenant, the respondent is estopped from challenging the title of the petitioner, in view of the provisions of section 116 of the Evidence Act. Further, if the transfer of the landlord's title is valid, and even if the tenancy is not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues Thus, a transferee of the landlord's rights, steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in re-spect of the subsisting tenancy. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the landlord's rights and there is no such statutory requirement. Reference may be made to the case of Hajee K. Assainar vs. Chacku Joseph AIR 1984 Ker CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 11 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:47:19 +0530
113. In the case of Mahendra Rathunathdas Gupta vs. Vishyanath Bhikaji Mogul AIR 1997 SC 2437, it was held that attornment by tenant is not necessary though it is desirable."
24. As regarding the nature of tenancy, the tenancy was oral and for commercial use, and no fixed period has been pleaded by the defendant. Hence it is month-to-month tenancy governed by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. This has nowhere been controverted in the written statement. Further, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 19.09.2019 terminating the tenancy. The notice was served at the defendant's residential address and also at the tenanted shop. Service is neither denied nor pleaded that notice was defective. Thus, tenancy stood terminated upon expiry of the statutory notice period and the defendant's possession after expiry of the notice period became unauthorized and without any legal right.
25. The only defence of the defendant is regarding title, pleading that the GPA/Agreement/Will are unregistered and Chand Mohammad is the owner. However the same remains unsupported by any material. These objections have no bearing upon the present issue because defendant has no document showing superior title or attornment to anyone after 1998. Further, defendant admits payment of rent to the plaintiff, which is decisive for a suit for possession. Even if the ownership was incomplete, the plaintiff clearly has better title and the defendant's admitted tenancy is through attornment to him.
26. Thus, the plaintiff's right to recover possession is stronger than the defendant's right to retain it. Accordingly, the plaintiff has CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 12 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:47:30 +0530 successfully established the tenancy, its lawful termination, and the defendant's continuing possession without authority. The defendant has failed to rebut these fundamental facts or to establish any superior right over the suit property.
27. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 1A Whether there is cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP
28. The plaintiff has pleaded that:
(i) he let out the shop to the defendant,
(ii) the defendant defaulted in rent from 01.08.2016,
(iii) tenancy was terminated on 19.09.2019, and
(iv) the defendant failed to hand over possession.
29. These averments constitute a clear cause of action for seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits. The defen- dant's objections regarding ownership and valuation do not negate the plaintiff's cause of action, rather they constitute only a defence. Cause of action is determined from the plaintiff's averments, which fully dis- close a justifiable claim, in the present case. The suit is founded on valid, recognized legal grounds.
30. Issue No. 1A is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 1B:
"Whether the suit is covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act?" OPD CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 13 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:47:40 +0530
31. The burden lies on the defendant to establish that the suit is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act), which would bar a civil court from entertaining an eviction claim where the tenant's rent is below Rs. 3,500/- per month. Thus, the defendant had to prove:
A) The rent is within the threshold of the DRC Act, B) The tenancy falls within premises protected by the Act.
32. In the present fact scenario, it is an admitted fact that the rate of rent is 450/- which is below 3500/- rent limit as prescribed by the DRC act. It has been argued by the Ld counsel for defendant that once the rent rate is below 3500/-, the property has to be treated to be covered under Rent Control Act.
33. In my humble opinion, the said contention of the defendant is misplaced and is liable to be rejected.
34. Before, a property can be covered under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, it is necessary that the area where such property is located is urbanized under the provisions of DMC Act and thereafter, a notification under DRC Act is required to be issued by the Central Government allowing extension of provisions of DRC Act to be extended to the said area
35. Under section 1 (2) read with Section 3 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, before the provisions of the said Act can be applied to a given property, the following conditions should invariably be met:
I. The areas to which the Act should apply must be included within the limits of NDMC or Delhi Cantonment Board or such urban areas which falls within the limits of MCD as a specified CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 14 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:47:49 +0530 in the first Schedule annexed to the Act. (See Section 1(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) II. The provisions of the said Act can be extended by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette to any other urban area included within the limits of MCD, (Sce proviso of Section 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) III. The provisions of the Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to the Government, to any tenancy or any like relationship created by a grant from the Government. (See Section 3 (a) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) IV. The provisions of Act do not apply to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.3500/-. (See Section 3 (c) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) V. The provisions of Act do not apply to any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, for a period of 10 years from the date of completion of such construction. (See Section 3 (d) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958).
36. Thus, before the bar of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 can apply qua a given property, it is necessary that the said property should either fall in the first Schedule annexed to the Act or the provisions of the Act are duly extended to the area where the property is located by way of a notification issued by the Central Government. It means that only because the rent of the property is Rs.3500/-or less cannot ipso facto make the provisions of Delhi Rent CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 15 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:47:58 +0530 Control Act, 1958 applicable to a given property. The law in this regard is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi 85(2000) DLT 658. The said ratio was followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in cases Rajpal Singh Vs. Deen Dayal Kapil 207 (2014) DLT 651 and Sohan Pal Vs. Uma Shanker (2014) 2 RCR (Rent) 12.
37. Thus, in the present case, before it can be held that the property in question is covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it has to be seen whether the area where the suit property is located has been notified or is covered in the first schedule, as aforesaid. Despite, the onus being on the defendant, he has failed to file any notification or point out the schedule to say that the act is application on the suit property. Be that as it may, it being a purely legal issue of which cognizance can be taken by the this Court
38. lt may be noted that there is no dispute between the parties that the suit property is located in Village Mirpur Turk. Now, before the suit property is stated to be covered under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it has to be seen as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable in the said area/village or not.
39. I may note that during arguments as well as evidence, counsel for defendant was given an opportunity to produce any notification issued by the Central Government whereby the provisions of the DRC Act have been extended to the area of Village Mirpur Turk. No such notification was produced.
40. The name of Village Mirpur Turk does not find mention in the first schedule annexed to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Again, CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 16 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:48:05 +0530 there appears to be no notification either issued under Section 507 of MCD Act (qua urbanization of the said village) or qua extension of the provisions of Delhi Rent Control under Section 1 (2) of the said Act to the village where the suit property is located. As already noted, no such notification was brought to my notice by the counsel for the defendant during arguments.
41. The list of notifications available in the court and filed by the plaintiff shows that Village Mirpur Turk is neither an urbanized area under Section 507 of the DMC Act nor does it appear to be notified under Section 1 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
42. Accordingly, Issue No. 1B is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of arrears of rent, as prayed for? OPP
43. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the shop ad-measuring 7 ft. × 11 ft. forming part of property No. F-484, Khasra No. 109, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, at a monthly rent of ₹450/- and that the defendant is in arrears of rent for the period 01.08.2016 to 31.08.2019, totalling ₹17,100/-. The burden to establish arrears lies upon the plaintiff.
44. The defendant, in his written statement, has not given any specific denial or details of rent paid for this period. His defence is confined principally to questioning the plaintiff's title. No receipts, ledger, or record of rent payment for the relevant period have been CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 17 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:48:15 +0530 placed by him. Mere challenge to title does not constitute a defence to arrears, particularly when the tenancy and rate of rent stand admitted in cross-examination.
45. During cross-examination, the defendant candidly admitted that rent used to be paid by him to the plaintiff and that rent receipts Ex. PW-1/7 to Ex. PW-1/11 were issued by the plaintiff. He further admitted that till 1998, rent was paid by him to one Chand Mohd and thereafter rent was paid to the plaintiff, and that since 1998 no rent was demanded by or paid to Chand Mohd. This admission affirms the subsisting landlord-tenant relationship between the parties for the period relevant to arrears.
46. Significantly, in his evidence and cross-examination, the defendant also submitted that a cheque bearing No. 100668 dated 24.09.2019 for an amount of ₹16,650/- was deposited by him in the Court in RC/ARC No. 6/2020 towards rent. The defendant has not shown that the said deposit covered the entire arrears claimed in the present suit. The deposit of ₹16,650/- corresponds to 37 months' rent at ₹450/- per month, whereas the plaintiff's claim is for ₹17,100/- (38 months). Thus, the plaintiff is at liberty to seek release of the said deposited amount in accordance with law.
47. After adjusting the admitted deposit of ₹16,650/- against the arrears claimed of ₹17,100/-, the balance amount payable comes to ₹450/-, which the defendant has neither paid nor disputed through any evidence. There is no material on record to show that this balance rent was tendered or deposited elsewhere.
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 18 of 23
Digitally signed
ANIMESH by ANIMESH
BHASKAR
BHASKAR MANI
TRIPATHI
MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17
16:48:26 +0530
48. Accordingly, the plaintiff has successfully established the arrears of rent and is entitled to recovery of the balance amount of ₹450/-, after accounting for the admitted deposit made by the defendant.
49. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate, upon what amount and for what period? OPP
50. The plaintiff has sought interest on the arrears of rent claimed for the period 01.08.2016 to 31.08.2019. As discussed while deciding Issue No. 2, the total arrears of rent for the said period amount to ₹17,100/-, out of which ₹16,650/- stands deposited by the defendant through cheque No. 100668 dated 24.09.2019 in RC/ARC No. 6/2020. The balance amount of ₹450/- remains unpaid.
51. There is no contractual document placed on record specifying any agreed rate of interest between the parties. In the absence of any contractual stipulation, interest, if awarded, must rest on equitable considerations and compensatory principles.
52. The arrears of rent became due month-to-month. The defendant has not shown that he tendered the rent contemporaneously or within a reasonable time. To the contrary, the defendant himself admitted depositing the amount of ₹16,650/- only in September 2019, covering arrears for multiple years, without demonstrating that such delayed CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 19 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:48:38 +0530 deposit was justified. Thus, the plaintiff was deprived of the timely use of rental income.
53. However, since the defendant voluntarily deposited ₹16,650/- in the RC/ARC proceedings and the plaintiff is free to seek its release, awarding interest on that component would not be equitable. Interest, therefore, would be applicable only on the unpaid portion.
54. Considering the nature of the transaction, absence of a contractual rate, and the long pendency of rent dues, a reasonable rate of 6% per annum simple interest on the unpaid balance of ₹450/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization would meet the ends of justice.
55. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on ₹450/- from the date of filing of the suit till actual payment.
56. This issue is decided partly in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 4Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits, as prayed for? OPP
57. The plaintiff has claimed mesne profits/damages for use and occupation at the rate of ₹5,000/- per month from 05.10.2019 onwards, i.e., after the termination of tenancy through legal notice dated 19.09.2019. It stands established on record that the notice was duly served on the defendant and the tenancy stood terminated. The defendant did not hand over vacant possession thereafter and continues to occupy the tenanted shop; his possession after 05.10.2019 is, therefore, unauthorized.
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 20 of 23
Digitally signed
ANIMESH by ANIMESH
BHASKAR
BHASKAR MANI
TRIPATHI
MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17
16:48:46 +0530
58. It is also not disputed that the last admitted contractual rent was ₹450/- per month. The plaintiff has not produced any independent evidence such as lease deeds, market rent assessments, testimony of neighbouring shopkeepers, or municipal valuation records to prove the prevailing market rent of ₹5,000/- per month. Thus, the burden under Section 104 BSA (erstwhile S 101 Evidence Act) to prove the claimed market rate remains undischarged.
59. During cross-examination, PW-1 merely stated that the prevailing rate is ₹5,000/- per month but admitted that he has not filed any document to support this assertion. On the other hand, the defendant denied that ₹5,000/- is the prevailing rate but also admitted that he does not know the actual market rate. Thus, the record contains no positive evidence from either side establishing the actual market rent.
60. In the absence of evidence supporting the claimed rate of ₹5,000/- per month, the Court cannot grant mesne profits at the rate asserted by the plaintiff. However, as the occupation became unauthorized after termination of tenancy, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable compensation for use and occupation.
61. In such circumstances, relying on the last admitted rent as a reasonable benchmark where no evidence of higher market rent is produced, seems equitable and reasonable. Here, the admitted rent was ₹450/- per month. Considering that (i) no evidence of increased market rate has been placed on record, (ii) the plaintiff admitted several discrepancies regarding documents and site plan, and (iii) the defendant continued to remain in occupation even after termination, CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 21 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17 16:48:56 +0530 the ends of justice would be met by awarding use and occupation charges equivalent to the last admitted rent, i.e., ₹450/- per month.
62. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to mesne profits/usage charges at the rate of ₹450/- per month from 05.10.2019 till delivery of actual vacant possession.
63. This issue is therefore decided partly in favour of the plaintiff to the extent indicated above.
Issue No.5 Relief In view of the findings returned on all the issues, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be partly decreed. Accordingly, it is ordered as under:
(a) Decree of Possession: A decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of vacant, peaceful physical possession of the tenanted shop measuring 7 ft. × 11 ft. situated at Property No. F-484, Khasra No. 109, Village Mirpur Turk, in the abadi of Khajuri Khas, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi, as shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/6.
(b) Arrears of Rent: The plaintiff is held entitled to arrears of rent for the period 01.08.2016 to 31.08.2019 amounting to ₹17,100/-, out of which the defendant has already deposited ₹16,650/- through cheque No. 100668 dated 24.09.2019 in RC/ARC No. 06/2020.
The plaintiff is at liberty to seek release of the said amount from the concerned court. The balance ₹450/- stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 22 of 23
Digitally signed
ANIMESH by ANIMESH
BHASKAR
BHASKAR MANI
TRIPATHI
MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2025.11.17
16:49:07 +0530
(c) Interest: The plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of ₹450/- (the unpaid balance), from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
(d) Mesne Profits / Use and Occupation Charges: The plaintiff is entitled to use and occupation charges at the rate of ₹450/- per month from 05.10.2019 (the date the tenancy stood terminated and possession became unauthorized) until the defendant hands over vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff.
(e) Costs: Parties to bear their own costs.
64. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
65. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of neces- sary formalities.
ANIMESH Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI
TRIPATHI
MANI Date: 2025.11.17
TRIPATHI 16:49:16 +0530
Announced in the open court (Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi)
on 17th November, 2025. ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ North-East District, KKD, Delhi.
CS No. 679/2019 Ash Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Illyas Page No. 23 of 23