Delhi District Court
Kamal Kumar vs Ankush Verma And Anr on 31 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ 869/21
CNR No.: DLSW01011204-2021
In the matter of :
SMT. KAMAL KUMAR
W/o Sh. Inder Kumar
R/o KG-2/64, Vikaspuri
New Delhi- 110018. ....Plaintiff
Versus.
1. ANKUSH VERMA
S/o Sh. Nawal Kishore Verma
R/o C-385, Third Floor,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi -18.
2. BHANU PARTAP SHARMA
S/o A. P. Sharma,
R/o JG-2/204, 2nd Floor,
Vikaspuri, Delhi- 110018.
.....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 17.11.2021
Final Arguments Heard on : 21.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 31.01.2025
Counsel for the Plaintiff : Sh. Ranvir Vats
Counsel for the Defendant : Sh. Dilshad A. Khan
SUIT FOR POSSESSION,
INJUNCTION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF
RENT AND DAMAGES/MESNE PROFIT
Digitally
signed by
SUMIT
SUMIT DALAL
DALAL Date:
2025.02.07
17:29:27
+0530
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 1 of 56
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit, against the defendant, for possession, injunction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit.
FACTS STATED IN THE PLAINT
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Ms. Kamal Kumar, seeking possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages/mesne profits, and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing No. JG-2/204, Second Floor, Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). The plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, is summarized as follows:
a. Ownership: The plaintiff claims to be the absolute and rightful owner of the suit property, having purchased it from one Ms. Devika Arora vide a registered Agreement to Sell and GPA, both dated 14.11.2017.
b. Tenancy with Defendant No. 1: In April 2018, Defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff through a property dealer, Sh.
Mahesh Kumar (PW-2), seeking to rent the suit property for his employee, Defendant No. 2, Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sharma. c. Rent Agreement: A Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 was executed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 for a period of 11 months, from 04.05.2018 to 03.04.2019, at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/-, excluding electricity and water Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:29:36 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 2 of 56 +0530 charges. The agreement purportedly contained a clause for a 10% increase in rent upon renewal. d. Oral Renewal: The plaintiff alleges that after the expiry of the initial 11-month period, the tenancy was orally renewed for another year by mutual consent, with a 10% increase in the monthly rent.
e. Default in Rent Payment: The plaintiff claims that the defendants started defaulting on rent payments from December 2018. Despite requests, the rent remained unpaid. f. Bounced Cheque: In June 2019, Defendant No. 2 allegedly issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- drawn on the account of one Sh. Kamal Tyagi, purportedly the brother-in-law of Defendant No. 1, towards the outstanding rent. This cheque was dishonored upon presentation due to "insufficient funds,"
as evidenced by the return memo.
g. Part Payment: The plaintiff claims that the defendants made a part payment of Rs. 25,000/- on 21.11.2019 towards the rent arrears.
h. Continued Illegal Occupation: The plaintiff asserts that the tenancy came to an end in March 2020 by efflux of time, and the defendants' continued occupation thereafter is illegal. i. COVID-19 Pandemic: The plaintiff states that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and government directives, she initially refrained from pressuring the defendants for rent or eviction. j. Legal Notice: The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 13.03.2021 to the defendants, demanding vacant possession of the suit property and payment of the outstanding arrears of Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:29:44 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 3 of 56 rent. The notice was allegedly served upon the defendants, as evidenced by the postal receipts, but they failed to comply or respond.
k. Cause of Action: The plaintiff contends that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 04.05.2018 when the tenancy commenced, continued during the oral extension, and further arose when the defendants defaulted on rent payments and refused to vacate the premises.
l. Reliefs Sought: The plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:
A decree of possession of the suit property. Recovery of arrears of rent from March 2019 till the date of filing of the suit.
Damages/mesne profits for the illegal occupation from the date of termination of tenancy till the handing over of possession.
A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, parting with possession, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
FACTS STATED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:
3. The Defendant No. 2 was duly served with the summons of the suit on 27.09.2022 and the defendant no. 1 was served through publication. Vide order dated 08.08.2023 both the defendants were proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC has been moved on behalf of defendant no. 2 and the same has been allowed vide order dated 16.01.2024. The defendant no. 2 was directed to file a written statement within 30 Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 4 of 56 17:29:51 +0530 days. On 17.02.2024, a written statement was filed on behalf of the Defendant no. 2. The averments, made in the written statement of Defendant No. 2, are summed up in brief as follow:
a. Denial of Landlord-Tenant Relationship: Defendant No. 2 vehemently denies the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, either directly or indirectly through Defendant No. 1.
b. Challenge to Plaintiff's Ownership: He challenges the plaintiff's claim of ownership, asserting that the Agreement to Sell dated 14.11.2017 does not confer absolute ownership rights upon the plaintiff. He further contends that the suit property is a leasehold property, originally allotted to one Ms. Santosh Kaur, and is non-transferable.
c. Denial of Rent Agreement: Defendant No. 2 denies the existence, validity, and execution of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018. He specifically denies having ever signed or executed any such agreement with the plaintiff.
d. Claim of Independent Right to Possession: Defendant No. 2 asserts that he has an independent right to possess the suit property, stemming from a transaction with Ms. Devika Arora, the previous owner, in March 2017.
e. Payment to Devika Arora: He claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to Ms. Devika Arora in March 2017 for "dwelling rights" in the suit property.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:29:58 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 5 of 56 f. Continuous Possession: He states that since March 2017, after the alleged agreement with Ms. Devika Arora, he has been continuously residing in the suit property.
g. Denial of Defendant No. 1's Role: He denies that Defendant No. 1 had any role in his acquiring possession of the suit property or that Defendant No. 1 ever sought to rent the property for him as his alleged employee. He specifically denies knowing Defendant No. 2.
h. Denial of Bounced Cheque Connection: Defendant No. 2 denies any connection with the bounced cheque issued by Sh. Kamal Tyagi. He claims that Sh. Kamal Tyagi is not his relative and that the cheque was not issued on his behalf or for any liability of his.
i. Denial of Receiving Rent or Paying Rent: He denies ever having been a tenant of the plaintiff and, consequently, denies ever paying any rent for the suit property to the plaintiff.
j. Allegation of Conspiracy: Defendant No. 2 alleges that the plaintiff, in collusion with Defendant No. 1 (identified in his affidavit as Ankush Verma) and the attesting witnesses to the Rent Agreement, fabricated the Rent Agreement dated
04.05.2018 to illegally dispossess him.
k. Maintainability and Cause of Action: He contends that the suit is not maintainable, being a misuse of the process of law, and Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:30:05 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 6 of 56 that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. He further argues that the plaint discloses no cause of action against him.
l. Valuation and Court Fees: He raises a general objection that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and that the requisite court fees have not been paid.
m. Non-Receipt of Legal Notice: He claims that he did not receive the legal notice dated 13.03.2021 (Ex. PW1/5) allegedly sent by the plaintiff.
FACTS STATED IN THE REPLICATION
4. The Plaintiff has filed the replication, wherein the Plaintiff has traversed the contents of the written statement of the Defendant No. 2 and has made the necessary denials, reiterating the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 01.07.2024 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property?
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and mesne profit as prayed for ? Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:30:12 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 7 of 56 OPP
4. If the issues no. 2 & 3 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, for what period and at what rate? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-2.
7. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD-2.
8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees?
OPD-2.
9. Whether the plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees? OPD-2.
10. Relief THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. The Plaintiff has led its evidence and has examined 5 witnesses in support of her case. The details of the Plaintiff's witnesses are as follows:
a. PW-1 : Ms. Kamal Kumar b. PW-2 : Sh. Mahesh Kumar c. PW-3 : Sh. Kirat Khurana d. PW-4 : Sh. Anil Kumar Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:30:20 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 8 of 56 e. PW-5 : Sh. Inder Kumar
7. The Plaintiff herself appeared as PW-1 and deposed in line with the plaint of the suit and tendered her evidence affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
S. Documents Exhibit Pages
No.
1. Copy of agreement to sell and Ex. PW1/1 124
purchase, GPA and other (colly) (OSR)
documents.
I wish to mention here that the
MCD property tax receipts filed
by me are the computer
generated, however, I have not
filed certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, hence, I do not want to rely upon the said receipts and same may not be read in evidence) 2. Copy of rent agreement dated Ex. PW1/2 3 04.05.2018 (OSR) 3. Copy of cheque bearing no. Ex. PW1/3 1 166628 (OSR) 4. Copy of return memo dated Ex. PW1/4 1 17.08.2019 (OSR) 5. Legal demand notice Ex. PW1/5 4 6. Original postal receipts Ex. PW1/6 1 Thereafter, PW-1 was cross examined by Sh. Dilshad Ahmed Khan Ld. counsel for the Defendant on 04.07.2024 and he was discharged.
8. Thereafter, PW-2/Sh. Mahesh Kumar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at pt. Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 9 of 562025.02.07 17:30:29 +0530 A and B. PW-2 was cross examined by Sh. Dilshad Ahmed Khan, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 on 06.07.2024 and discharged.
9. Thereafter, PW-3/ Sh. Kirat Khurana has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at pt. A and B. PW-3 was cross examined by Sh. Dilshad Ahmed Khan, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 on 06.07.2024 and discharged.
10. PW-4 Sh. Anil Kumar, Senior Assistant from Sub Registrar Office II-B, Janakpuri, New Delhi, who is an official witness and has proved the certified copy of GPA executed between Ms. Devika Arora and Sh. Kamal Kumar as Ex. PW4/A. He has also proved the certified copy of sale agreement executed between Devika Arora and Kamal Kumar as Ex.PW4/B. This witness was not cross examined by Sh. Dilshad Ahmed Khan, ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 on 09.07.2024 and he was discharged.
11. PW-5/Sh. Inder Kumar has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures at pt. A and B. Thereafter PW-5 was cross examined by Sh. Dilshad Ahmed Khan, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 on 16.07.2024 and discharged. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 have deposed in line with the deposition of PW-1, hence, the same is not reiterated here for the sake of brevity.
12. Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff dated 16.07.2024, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:30:36 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 10 of 56 +0530 THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
13. The Defendant no. 2 himself appeared as DW-1 and deposed in line with the pleadings in his/her written statement and has tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex. DW1/A. Thereafter, DW-1 was cross examined by Sh. Ranvir Vats, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on 19.11.2024 and he was discharged.
14. Thereafter, on the statement of ld. Counsel for Defendant no. 2, the defendant's evidence was closed on 19.11.2024.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 1 - WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY? OPP
15. The burden of proof to establish entitlement to possession rests upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's case is that Defendant No. 1 approached her for taking the suit property on rent for accommodation of his employee, Defendant No. 2. Pursuant to this request, a Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2) was executed for a period of 11 months (from 04.05.2018 to 03.04.2019). The rent agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2) contained a provision for extension of the tenancy period according to which the rent agreement can be renewed by executing a fresh rent agreement with same terms and conditions with escalation of 10% in the rent amount. The Plaintiff claims that after the expiry of the 11 months period, the tenancy was extended for a period of one year on the Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:30:43 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 11 of 56 basis of mutual consent and oral agreement with 10% increase in the rent amount.
16. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants defaulted in payment of rent, and in discharge of liability toward the outstanding rent, Defendant No. 2 issued a cheque (Ex. PW1/3) of Rs. 50,000/- in her favor. The said cheque (Ex. PW1/3) is from the account of the brother in law of Defendant No.1, Sh. Kamal Tyagi. However, when presented for encashment, the cheque was dishonored due to "Funds Insufficient," as reflected in the return memo (Ex. PW1/4).
17. On the other hand, Defendant No. 1 has not contested the suit, as he failed to file any written statement and was consequently proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.2023. Defendant No. 2, however, has contested the suit by denying any landlord-tenant relationship with the Plaintiff and asserting that his possession of the suit property is independent of the Plaintiff's claims. He contends that he never entered into any rent agreement with the Plaintiff. Instead, he claims that his possession is based on a separate financial transaction with Ms. Devika Arora, the previous occupant, from whom he allegedly obtained the right to reside in the suit property after paying her a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in March 2017. According to Defendant No. 2, this transaction conferred upon him the right to continue residing in the premises without any obligation towards the Plaintiff. Additionally, he disputes the issuance of any cheque in favor of the Plaintiff, asserting that the dishonored cheque (Ex. PW1/3) was not drawn by him but Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 12 of 56 17:30:50 +0530 by a third party unrelated to any rental liability on his part. Thus, Defendant No. 2's defense primarily rests on the claim that the Plaintiff has no legal standing to seek his eviction since he derives possession from a pre-existing arrangement with Ms. Devika Arora, rather than from any tenancy agreement with the Plaintiff.
18. Since Defendant No. 1 has chosen not to raise any defense, while Defendant No. 2 has set up a distinct defense based on an alleged separate transaction with a third party, this Court shall adjudicate the Plaintiff's claim for possession against each Defendant separately.
Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Possession Against Defendant No. 1
19. It is an undisputed fact on record that Defendant No. 1 neither filed a written statement nor contested the suit, leading to ex parte proceedings against him as per order dated 08.08.2023. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's averments regarding Defendant No. 1 remain uncontroverted and shall be examined in light of the evidence on record.
20. To prove the entitlement of possession on the basis of landlord tenant relationship, the legal benchmark is as follows:
a. there must be a jural relationship as landlord and tenant. b. tenancy is not protected under the provisions of rent control act c. termination of tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under section 106 of Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 13 of 56
2025.02.07 17:30:57 +0530 Transfer of Property Act and the tenant has failed to hand over the possession.
21. The plaintiff's claim against Defendant No. 1 hinges on the existence and validity of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2). To succeed, the plaintiff must prove, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a valid Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1.
22. The plaintiff relies on the original Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2), which was seen and returned by the Court. This constitutes primary evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
23. The plaintiff produced two attesting witnesses to the Rent Agreement - PW-2 (Mahesh Kumar) and PW-3 (Kirat Khurana). PW-2, the property dealer, testified in his evidence affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that he witnessed the execution of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2) and also identified his signature on it. While his cross-examination revealed inconsistencies regarding Defendant No. 2's presence and signature, his testimony regarding the agreement's execution between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 remained largely unshaken on this particular aspect.
24. PW-3, Kirat Khurana, too testified in favor of the plaintiff. He affirmed in his evidence affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that he witnessed the execution of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2) and also identified his signature on it. He further Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 14 of 562025.02.07 17:31:06 +0530 corroborated the plaintiff's claim that he facilitated the rental to Defendant No. 2 as Defendant No. 1's employee.
25. Defendant No. 1's decision not to contest the suit and his being proceeded against ex parte has profound implications. While his silence is not a direct admission of the agreement's validity, it allows the court to draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff, particularly when the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case regarding the tenancy. In the present case, given the attesting witnesses' testimonies and Defendant No. 1's failure to rebut the plaintiff's claims, the court can infer that Defendant No. 1 tacitly accepts the existence and execution of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2).
26. Considering the corroborating testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, the production of the original Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2), and, crucially, Defendant No. 1's ex parte status, the plaintiff has successfully proven the execution of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2) between herself and Defendant No. 1 on a balance of probabilities. With the proof of the execution of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2), this Court is satisfied that there existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1.
27. Now, coming to the applicability of the provision of rent control act. The Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) clearly stipulates an 11-month tenancy from 04.05.2018 to 03.04.2019 at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000. Since the execution of the Rent Agreement has Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 15 of 562025.02.07 17:31:19 +0530 been proved, its contents, including the terms of the tenancy, rate rent etc. are admissible and reliable. Therefore, the terms of the tenancy, as stipulated in rent agreement (Ex. PW1/2), are established.
28. The Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) stipulates a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000, which exceeds the Rs. 3,500 threshold for the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Therefore, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, do not apply to this tenancy and the tenancy is not protected by the said Act. Therefore, the tenancy is governed by the terms of the Rent Agreement and the general principles of contract law and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
29. The Plaintiff asserts that after the expiry of the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2), the tenancy was orally renewed for a further period of one year by mutual consent. However, as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any lease for one year or more must be created or renewed through a registered instrument. In the absence of such a registered document, the Plaintiff's claim of an oral renewal for a fixed one-year term is legally unenforceable. Nevertheless, where a tenant continues in possession after the expiry of a written agreement and pays rent, the tenancy, by operation of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, is deemed a month-to-month tenancy, terminable by 15 days' notice.
30. Accordingly, upon the expiration of the 11-month tenancy, the tenancy continued on a month-to-month basis. The SUMIT DALAL Digitally signed CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 16 of 56 by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.02.07 17:31:27 +0530 Plaintiff has placed on record a legal notice dated 13.03.2021 (Ex. PW1/5) purporting to terminate the tenancy, along with postal receipts (Ex. PW1/6) as proof of dispatch. However, the Plaintiff has not furnished any document establishing that the legal notice was duly served upon the Defendants. The postal receipts (Ex. PW1/6) merely confirm the dispatch of the correspondence but do not constitute conclusive proof of service.
31. In situations where the service of a termination notice is not proved, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nopany Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Santok Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728, which affirms that the filing of the suit itself serves as constructive notice to quit and satisfies the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for passing a decree of possession. In the present case, Defendant No. 1 was served in this suit by way of publication on 24.05.2023. Therefore, the tenancy stands terminated 15 days from the said service, i.e., on 08.06.2023. Consequently, the tenancy of Defendant No. 1 was legally terminated on 08.06.2023.
32. The plaintiff has successfully proved the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendant No. 1, evidenced by the duly executed Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2). The terms of the tenancy, including the rent amount and duration, are established by the Rent Agreement. The tenancy has been proven to be terminated on 08.06.2023. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, does not apply to this tenancy.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:31:36 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 17 of 56
33. Defendant No. 1, by not contesting the suit and being proceeded against ex parte, has failed to present any defense or rebut the plaintiff's claims.
34. Therefore, as against Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property. The plaintiff's right to possession, in this case, flows from the established landlord-tenant relationship and the termination of that tenancy. Defendant No. 1's ex parte status has significantly weakened any potential defense and has allowed the court to accept the plaintiff's evidence and arguments regarding the tenancy at face value.
Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Possession Against Defendant No. 2
35. The plaintiff's claim for possession against Defendant No. 2 is primarily based on the assertion that he was an employee of Defendant No. 1, and that Defendant No. 1 rented the suit property for his accommodation. This implies that Defendant No. 2's right to occupy the suit property, if any, was derived from and dependent upon Defendant No. 1's tenancy. Defendant No. 2, however, vehemently denies this, claiming a prior and independent right to reside in the property based on an alleged transaction with the previous owner, Ms. Devika Arora.
36. To determine the plaintiff's entitlement to possession against Defendant No. 2, this Court will undertake a two-pronged analysis:
Digitally CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 18 of 56 signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:31:44 +0530 a. Whether a landlord-tenant relationship, direct or indirect, existed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. b. If no such relationship is established, whether the plaintiff has a superior possessory right to the suit property compared to Defendant No. 2.
Examination of Alleged Landlord-Tenant Relationship (Direct or Indirect):
37. The plaintiff's case hinges on proving that Defendant No. 2's occupation of the suit property was a consequence of the tenancy agreement with Defendant No. 1. To establish this, the plaintiff relies on the following:
a. Plaintiff's Pleadings and her testimony as PW-1: The plaintiff pleaded, and PW-1 (Plaintiff) testified in her evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A, that Defendant No. 1 rented the property for Defendant No. 2, his employee. The relevant portion of the Ex. PW1/A is reproduced below:
"That the deponent states that Defendant No. 1 approached Kirat Khurana s/0 Late Sh. J.S. Khurana to the Plaintiff through a mediator/property dealer namely Sh. Mahesh Kumar Proprietor M/S Kumar properties in the month of April 2018 and expressed his wish that the Defendant No. 1 wants a flat/house for rent for the defendant no. 2 i.e. his employee name Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sharma i.e. defendant no. 2.........."
Digitally signed by SUMIT CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 19 of 56 SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:31:54 +0530 b. Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) c. Testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5: These witnesses in their respective evidence affidavits Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW5/A respectively corroborated the plaintiff's claim that the property was rented to Defendant No. 1 for Defendant No. 2's accommodation.
38. However, a careful examination of the evidence reveals significant flaws in the plaintiff's assertion of a landlord-tenant relationship involving Defendant No. 2 which are discussed in the subsequent paras.
a. Defendant No. 2's Consistent Denial: Defendant No. 2 (DW-1) has consistently denied any landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, either directly or through Defendant No. 1. He denies signing the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) and disputes its validity.
b. Contradictory Testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 Regarding Rent Agreement: PW-2 (Mahesh Kumar) admitted in his cross-examination dated 06.07.2024 that Defendant No. 2 was not present at the time of the execution of the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) and that Defendant No. 2 did not sign the agreement. He further stated that Defendant No. 2 only came to the office in the evening after the execution of the agreement. The relevant portion of the cross examination of PW-2 dated 06.07.2024, is reproduced below:
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 20 of 56
2025.02.07 17:32:02 +0530 "Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sharma, was not present in the office at the time of execution of Ex. PW1/2 and in the evening, he had come to my office and had handed over the self attested photocopy of his aadhar card to me. It is correct that at the time of execution of Ex. PW1/2 only Sh. Ankush Verma had signed the same and Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sharma had not signed the same at that time."
Similarly, PW-3 (Kirat Khurana), admitted in his cross- examination that Defendant No. 2 did not sign the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2). He further stated that Defendant No. 1 told him that his employee (Defendant No. 2) would be residing in the premises. This statement, however, is hearsay and lacks independent corroboration. It cannot be relied upon to establish the fact that Defendant No. 1 took the tenancy for Defendant No. 2. The relevant portion of the cross examination of PW-3 dated 06.07.2024 is reproduced below:
"The rent agreement was signed by me, Ankush Verma and the owner of Kumar Properties. Defendant No. 2 had not signed the rent agreement at that time. The rent agreement was executed between Ankush Verma and owner namely Ms. Kumari."
c. Admission of PW-5 and PW-2 Regarding Non Receiving Of Rent From Defendant No. 2 - PW-5 (Inder Kumar) admitted SUMIT DALAL CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 21 of 56 Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.02.07 17:32:09 +0530 in his cross examination dated 16.07.2024 that neither he nor the plaintiff received rent payments directly from Defendant No. 2. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced below:
"I have the document/proof showing that the defendant no. 2 paid had paid the rent of the suit property to me. Vol. The payment of rent has not been paid by Defendant No. 2 and rather it has come from defendant no. 1 Ankush Verma. It is correct that neither me, nor, my wife had directly received rent from defendant no. 2 Bhanu Pratap."
PW-2 in his cross examination dated 06.07.2024 deposed as follows:
"Defendant No. 2 has never paid any rent to the Plaintiff but defendant no. 1 had paid three months of rent amounting to Rs. 24,000/- to me and Rs. 25,000/- was transferred in the bank account of plaintiff."
d. Absence of Defendant No. 2's Name in the Rent Agreement:
The Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) does not specify that the tenancy is being created for the benefit of Defendant No. 2 or that he is an employee of Defendant No. 1. There is no mention at all of Defendant No. 2 in the rent agreement (Ex PW-1/2). This lack of clarity in the document itself weakens Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 22 of 56 17:32:19 +0530 the plaintiff's claim. Moreover, the agreement (Ex. PW1/2) also does not bear the signature of Defendant No. 2. e. Lack of Privity of Contract: The plaintiff has failed to establish any direct contractual relationship between herself and Defendant No. 2. There is no evidence of any agreement, written or oral, between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 regarding the terms of his occupancy. f. No Rent Payments from Defendant No. 2: PW-5 admitted in his cross-examination that neither he nor the plaintiff received any rent directly from Defendant No. 2. This further supports the lack of a direct landlord-tenant relationship.
Conclusion on Landlord-Tenant Relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2:
39. Based on the above analysis, the plaintiff has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a landlord- tenant relationship, either direct or indirect, between herself and Defendant No. 2. The contradictory testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses, the absence of Defendant No. 2's signature on the Rent Agreement, the lack of any mention of Defendant No. 2 being the beneficiary of the tenancy in the agreement, the lack of any privity of contract, and the admitted absence of rent payments from Defendant No. 2 all point towards the absence of such a relationship.
40. Having determined that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2, the Court must now ascertain who possesses the superior possessory right to the suit Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 23 of 562025.02.07 17:32:27 +0530 property. This requires a comparative analysis of their respective claims and the evidence presented.
Plaintiff's Claim to Superior Possessory Right:
41. The plaintiff's claim rests on a registered Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017 with Devika Arora (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B). The Plaintiff also relies on the previous chain of documents starting from Smt. Santokh Kaur (the original allottee) and ending with the Plaintiff (Ex. PW1/1). The Plaintiff has brought the Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017 in original and the same has also been proved by corroboration by the Sub-Registrar (PW-4). The testimony of PW-4, the official from the Sub-Registrar's office, confirms the registration and authenticity of the Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017. Therefore, the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017 between the Plaintiff and Devika Arora (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B) are duly proved.
42. To substantiate her claim, the plaintiff relies on the following evidence:
a. Registered Agreement to Sell and GPA (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B): These documents, being registered instruments under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, carry a presumption of validity and genuineness regarding the transaction they record. The Agreement to Sell, while not a title transfer document in itself, signifies a legally binding agreement for the sale of the property and often includes Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 24 of 56 17:32:34 +0530 clauses regarding the transfer of possession. The GPA, especially when coupled with an Agreement to Sell, often authorizes the purchaser to manage, deal with, and even take possession of the property. The combined effect of these registered documents creates a strong prima facie case for the plaintiff's right to possess the property. These documents were authenticated by PW-4, an official from the Sub-Registrar's office, further bolstering their credibility. The originals were also produced in court, seen, and returned. b. Testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5:
PW-1 (Kamal Kumar, Plaintiff): Her testimony (Ex. PW1/A) regarding the purchase of the property through these documents, while lacking in details about her interactions with Defendant No. 2, remains relevant to establishing her initial claim to a superior possessory right.
PW-2 (Mahesh Kumar): He claimed to have witnessed the execution of these documents in his evidence affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), adding some weight to their authenticity, although his credibility was challenged in cross-examination.
PW-5 (Inder Kumar): He corroborated the purchase and stated he handled the transaction on behalf of his wife, the plaintiff (Ex. PW5/A).
c. PW-4's Testimony: The testimony of PW-4 (Anil Kumar, Senior Assistant from the Sub-Registrar's Office) is crucial. He produced certified copies of the GPA (Ex. PW4/A) and the Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:32:46 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 25 of 56 Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW4/B), confirming their registration. This official confirmation adds substantial weight to the authenticity and legal standing of these documents. The defense did not cross-examine him, allowing his testimony to stand unchallenged.
Defendant No. 2's Claim to Possessory Right:
43. The basis of the claim of Defendant No. 2 (Bhanu Pratap Sharma) asserts that he paid Rs. 3,50,000 to Ms. Devika Arora in March 2017 for "dwelling rights" in the suit property and has resided there since.
44. To prove his claim, Defendant No. 2 relies on his testimony (Ex. DW1/A) only. His evidence affidavit (Ex. DW1/A) is the only evidence presented to support his claim. He reiterates the alleged payment and agreement with Devika Arora.
45. Defendant No. 2 (DW-1) admitted during cross- examination that he possesses no documentary evidence whatsoever to prove the payment of Rs. 3,50,000, the alleged agreement with Devika Arora, or any rights granted to him. This absence of any documentation is a fatal flaw in his claim, particularly given the nature of the transaction and the amount allegedly involved.
46. Another important aspect which requires Court's consideration is a statement recorded by the Defendant No. 2 in the Court on 14.05.2024 which is reproduced below:
"On SA Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:32:53 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 26 of 56 I am the defendant no. 2 in this present suit and presently residing at the property in question i.e. JG-2/204, 2nd Floor, Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 18. I state that I do not have any right of possession over the suit property and therefore, I will vacate suit property within 15 days from today, failing which I shall be liable for legal proceedings against me as per rule. I am making my statement without any force, fear and coercion."
Though on the next date of hearing, Defendant No. 2 changed his stance and claimed that the aforementioned statement dated 14.05.2024 was inadvertently made due to unavailability of his counsel on the said date of hearing and sought the leave of the Court to press for his defence. Even though, the Court allowed for the same but does not believe the version of the Defendant No. 2 that the statement made to Court on 14.05.2024 was inadvertently made.
47. The relevant legal principles in this regard are as follows:
a. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Part Performance): This section protects the rights of a transferee who has taken possession in furtherance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property, even if the transfer is not completed in the manner prescribed by law (e.g., through a registered sale deed). The plaintiff argues that, based on the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA, she has a right to possession under Section 53A.
b. Suraj Lamp & Industries Case: While the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 discourages 'GPA Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:33:01 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 27 of 56 +0530 sales' as a mode of transferring title, it does not invalidate them for the purposes of Section 53A, provided the necessary conditions are met.
c. Possessory Rights: The plaintiff is not claiming absolute ownership through these documents. She is asserting a superior possessory right against someone who, in her view, has no legitimate claim. The registered Agreement to Sell and GPA, coupled with the payment of consideration (as evidenced in the agreement), create a strong argument for such a right.
d. Presumption of Validity of Registered Documents: Registered documents enjoy a legal presumption of validity and genuineness under the Indian Evidence Act. The onus is on the party challenging them to prove otherwise. e. Burden of Proof: The burden of proving his prior agreement and payment rests squarely on Defendant No. 2. He must present credible and legally admissible evidence to support his claim.
f. Best Evidence Rule: This principle dictates that the best available evidence should be presented to the court. In a transaction involving a substantial sum of money and rights to immovable property, the absence of any written record significantly undermines the credibility of the claim. g. Oral Testimony Alone - Insufficient: While oral testimony can be considered, it is generally insufficient to establish a claim involving immovable property rights, especially when it contradicts registered documents and is not corroborated by Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:33:08 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 28 of 56 any other evidence. Courts generally require some form of documentary evidence to support claims related to property transactions. The principle of requiring corroborative evidence is especially strong when the oral testimony is self- serving and lacks credibility, as is the case with DW-1.
48. After a thorough evaluation of the evidence and applicable legal principles, this Court finds that the plaintiff, Ms. Kamal Kumar, has established a superior possessory right to the suit property compared to Defendant No. 2, Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sharma. The reasoning for the said finding is as follows:
a. Registered Documents vs. Unproven Oral Claim: The plaintiff's claim is founded on registered documents (Agreement to Sell and GPA) that carry a legal presumption of validity and demonstrate a legitimate transaction with the previous owner. These documents are authenticated by a government official (PW-4). Defendant No. 2's claim, in stark contrast, is based solely on his uncorroborated and unreliable oral testimony, devoid of any supporting evidence. b. Plaintiff's Prima Facie Right: The registered Agreement to Sell and GPA, under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and relevant precedents, establish the plaintiff's prima facie right to possess the property, even if full legal title has not yet been transferred.
c. Defendant No. 2's Failure to Discharge Burden of Proof:
Defendant No. 2 has miserably failed to discharge his burden of proving his alleged prior agreement and payment to Devika Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:33:17 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 29 of 56 Arora. His lack of any documentary evidence is fatal to his claim.
d. Credibility Assessment: The plaintiff's witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5), despite some inconsistencies on other issues, have presented a relatively more coherent and believable narrative regarding the purchase of the property. In contrast, DW-1's credibility was severely impeached during cross-examination due to contradictions, evasiveness, and his inability to provide any supporting evidence for his claims. e. Defendant No. 2's Admission: Defendant No. 2's unequivocal admission in court on 14.05.2024 that he has no right of possession and his undertaking to vacate the property is conclusive and decisive. It renders his entire defense unsustainable and confirms the plaintiff's superior right to possession.
f. Balance of Probabilities: The balance of probabilities overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. She has presented a documented and legally recognizable claim to possession, while Defendant No. 2 has presented a claim that is entirely unsupported and incredible.
49. Therefore, even in the absence of a proven landlord- tenant relationship between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2, Issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative. The plaintiff, Ms. Kamal Kumar, has demonstrated a superior possessory right to the suit property based on her registered Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017 (Ex. PW1/1). Defendant No. 2, Sh. Bhanu Pratap Digitally signed by SUMIT Date:
SUMIT DALAL CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 30 of 56 DALAL 2025.02.07 17:33:25 +0530 Sharma, has failed to establish any legitimate right to remain in possession, his claim of a prior agreement with Devika Arora being wholly unsubstantiated and unbelievable and rendered moot by his own admission of having no right to possession. Consequently, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from Defendant No. 2.
ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER ARREARS OF RENT AS PRAYED FOR? (OPP)
50. The onus to prove this issue lies on the Plaintiff (OPP).
The plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent is inextricably linked to the alleged landlord-tenant relationship with the defendants. This Court has already adjudicated Issue No. 1 and determined that:
a. A landlord-tenant relationship existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, based on the Rent Agreement dated 04.05.2018 (Ex. PW1/2).
b. No landlord-tenant relationship, either direct or indirect, existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2.
51. Therefore, this Court will now determine the plaintiff's entitlement to arrears of rent from each defendant separately.
Arrears of Rent from Defendant No. 1:
52. The tenancy, as established under Issue No. 1, was for a fixed period of 11 months from 04.05.2018 to 03.04.2019 as per the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2), and thereafter continued as a month- Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 31 of 56 DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:33:33 +0530 to-month tenancy by operation of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Plaintiff has claimed in his plaint that the Defendant was not making regular payments after December 2018 but did not make any payments at all after March 2019. Thus, the claim is that from December 2018 till March 2019, the rent payments were irregular and thereafter from March 2019 till date, the Defendants have not paid any rent. The Plaintiff did not specifically state the month in which the rent payment was not made in the period December 2018 till March 2019. Moreover, the Plaintiff has only prayed for arrears of rent payment from March 2019 till date.
53. To substantiate his claim, the Plaintiff has relied upon the following evidence which are analyzed below:
a. Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2): This document, already proved under Issue No. 1, stipulates a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000.
b. Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5: PW-1 (Plaintiff) and PW-5 (Plaintiff's husband) testified in their respective evidence affidavits (Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW5/A) that Defendant No. 1 defaulted on rent from December January 2019 till date. c. Bounced Cheque (Ex. PW1/3) and Return Memo (Ex. PW1/4): While the connection of this cheque to Defendant No. 2 is disputed, its dishonor does indicate some attempt to make a payment, although the purpose for the same is not clearly proven.
d. Defendant No. 1's Ex Parte Status: Defendant No. 1's failure to contest the suit allows the Court to draw inferences in favor Digitally CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 32 of 56 signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:33:43 +0530 of the plaintiff regarding the non-payment of rent. His silence can be interpreted as a tacit admission of default.
Conclusion on Arrears from Defendant No. 1:
54. The plaintiff has successfully proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Defendant No. 1 defaulted on rent payments. The ex parte status of Defendant No. 1 further supports this conclusion.
Calculation of Arrears from Defendant No. 1:
55. Rent was due from March 2019 onwards, as claimed by the plaintiff in her plaint. As per the plaint and the deposition of PW-1 and PW-5 which have gone unrebutted, the monthly rent from March 2019 onwards was with 10% increase to the monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/- as per the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2). Therefore, the monthly rent will Rs. 8800/-
56. The Plaintiff has claimed arrears till date in the plaint. The Plaintiff is entitled for arrears from March 2019 till the date termination of tenancy. As per para 31 of this judgment, the finding of the Court is that the tenancy got terminated on 08.06.2023. For the purpose of calculation convenience, no arrears are being calculated for 8 days in June and therefore, the period for which arrears are being calculated is 51 months (March 2019 to May 2023).
Total Arrears: 51 months x Rs. 8,800/month = Rs. 4,48,800/- Deducting the part payment of Rs. 25,000, as evidenced by the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5, the net arrears due are Rs. 4,23,800/-.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 33 of 562025.02.07 17:33:54 +0530 Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 4,23,800/- as arrears of rent from Defendant No. 1.
Arrears of Rent from Defendant No. 2 (Bhanu Pratap Sharma):
57. The plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent from Defendant No. 2 is predicated on the assertion that he was Defendant No. 1's employee and residing in the suit property under Defendant No. 1's tenancy. However, this Court has already found, while adjudicating Issue No. 1, that no landlord-tenant relationship, either direct or indirect, existed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2.
58. The available evidences and the respective analysis are as follows:
a. No Privity of Contract: There is no evidence of any agreement, written or oral, between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 regarding the payment of rent. b. Defendant No. 2's Denial: Defendant No. 2 (DW-1) has consistently denied any liability to pay rent to the plaintiff. c. Plaintiff's Failed Claim: The plaintiff's claim for rent from Defendant No. 2 was solely based on the unproven assertion of a landlord-tenant relationship through Defendant No. 1.
Conclusion on Arrears from Defendant No. 2:
59. The plaintiff has failed to establish any legal basis for claiming arrears of rent from Defendant No. 2. There is no privity of contract, no established landlord-tenant relationship, and no evidence of any agreement for Defendant No. 2 to pay rent to the Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL 2025.02.07 Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 34 of 5617:34:02 +0530 plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any arrears of rent from Defendant No. 2.
Overall Finding on Issue No. 2:
60. Issue No. 2 is partly decided in the affirmative and partly in the negative. The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 4,23,800/- as arrears of rent from Defendant No. 1 for the period of March 2019 to May 2023. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover any arrears of rent from Defendant No. 2.
ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFIT AS PRAYED FOR? (OPP)
61. The onus to prove this issue lies on the Plaintiff (OPP). The plaintiff's claim for damages and mesne profits arises from the alleged illegal occupation of the suit property by the defendants after the termination of the tenancy.
62. Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, defines "mesne profits" as:
"those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession."
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 35 of 56 17:34:09 +0530
63. Essentially, mesne profits represent the compensation a rightful owner is entitled to recover for the wrongful possession of their property. This compensation is typically calculated based on the rent the property could have reasonably fetched if let out during the period of unlawful occupation.
64. The plaintiff claims that the defendants' occupation of the suit property became illegal after the termination of the tenancy. The plaintiff further claims that she is entitled to damages at the rate of double the agreed rent (Rs. 8,000/-) along with a 10% yearly increase, along with damages or usage charges as the tenanted premises may fetch the same rent.
65. This Court has already found in Issue No. 1 that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, and that the tenancy was terminated on 08.06.2023. Defendant No. 1's occupation after the termination of the tenancy is, therefore, wrongful. Defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte.
66. This Court has already found in Issue No. 1 that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. However, this Court also found that the plaintiff has a superior possessory right to the suit property compared to Defendant No. 2, whose claim of a prior agreement with Devika Arora was rejected as unsubstantiated. Therefore, Defendant No. 2's occupation of the suit property, in the absence of any proven legal right, is wrongful as against the plaintiff, who has a superior Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:34:18 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 36 of 56 possessory right. Moreover, Defendant No. 2 made a statement in the Court on 14.05.2024, admitting that he has no right of possession over the suit property and undertook to vacate the same within 15 days. Despite this admission, he did not vacate.
67. When two or more persons are responsible for a wrongful act, they can be held jointly and severally liable for the damages arising from that act. This means the plaintiff can recover the entire amount of damages from either defendant, or partly from each.
68. In this case, although a direct landlord-tenant relationship was not established with Defendant No. 2, his occupation was initially claimed by the plaintiff to be linked to Defendant No. 1's tenancy. Defendant No. 2's own admission of having no right to possession further solidifies his liability. Both defendants, by their actions (Defendant No. 1 by not vacating after tenancy termination and Defendant No. 2 by occupying without any legal right), have deprived the plaintiff of the rightful use and profits from her property.
69. Holding both defendants jointly and severally liable ensures that the plaintiff is fully compensated for her loss, regardless of the internal arrangements or disputes between the defendants. It prevents a situation where each defendant attempts to shift the blame onto the other, leaving the plaintiff without an effective remedy.
Assessment of Damages/Mesne Profits:
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 37 of 56 Date:
DALAL 2025.02.07 17:34:26 +0530
70. The quantum of mesne profits should be based on the rent the property could have reasonably fetched if let out during the period of wrongful occupation. The last agreed rent under the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2) with Defendant No. 1 was Rs. 8,000 per month.
71. The plaintiff has claimed an increase of 10% in rent. The Plaintiff has claimed that after the expiry of the 11 months period as per the rent agreement Ex. PW1/2, there was an oral agreement for renewal of tenancy with 10% increase in rent amount. However, in the present case, no evidence has been led by the Plaintiff to prove any oral agreement for renewal of rent agreement after the expiry of 11 months period. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon.
72. However, given the passage of time since the termination of the tenancy and the general trend of increasing rental values, it is reasonable to factor in a 10% increase in rent from June 2023 onwards while calculating mesne profits. This is also supported by the clause in the rent agreement Ex. PW1/2 which states that on renewal, the rent will be increased by 10%. Although the initial period of tenancy has expired and the agreement was not renewed, the said clause indicates the general understanding between the parties regarding the periodic increase in rent. Therefore, while calculating the mesne profit, 10% increase is being factored in.
73. Therefore, mesne profits will be calculated as follows:
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT Date:
DALAL DALAL 2025.02.07 17:34:34 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 38 of 56 From June 2023 to May 2024: Rs. 9,680/- per month (including 10% increase on Rs. 8,800/-). From June 2024 to May 2025: Rs. 10,648/- per month (including 10% increase on Rs. 9,680/-). And so on with a 10% increase every year in the month of June till the vacation of the suit property.
74. Both defendants are held jointly and severally liable for mesne profits from June 2023 until the date they hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Finding on Issue No. 3:
75. Issue No. 3 is decided in the affirmative. The plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits/damages from both Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, jointly and severally, at the following rates:
From June 2023 to May 2024: Rs. 9,680/- per month. From June 2024 to May 2025: Rs. 10,648/- per month. And so on with a 10% increase every year in the month of June till the vacation of the suit property.
76. The mesne profits shall be payable from June 2023 until the date both the defendants hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4: IF THE ISSUES NO. 2 & 3 ARE PROVED IN AFFIRMATIVE, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR ANY INTEREST, IF YES, FOR WHAT PERIOD AND AT WHAT RATE? (OPP) Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 39 of 56 DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:34:43 +0530
77. This issue deals with the plaintiff's entitlement to interest on the arrears of rent (Issue No. 2) and mesne profits (Issue No. 3) awarded in her favor. The onus to prove this issue lies on the Plaintiff (OPP).
78. The plaintiff, in her plaint, has prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on both the arrears of rent and mesne profits.
Entitlement to Interest:
79. As the plaintiff has successfully established Defendant No. 1's liability for arrears of rent, she is entitled to interest on this amount. The landlord-tenant relationship, governed by the Rent Agreement, justifies the award of interest for the period the rent remained unpaid.
80. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on mesne profits, as it is explicitly included in the definition under Section 2(12) CPC. The defendants' wrongful possession deprived the plaintiff of the legitimate income she could have earned from the property. Interest compensates for this loss.
Period of Interest:
81. Interest on arrears of rent from Defendant No. 1 should accrue from the date each month's rent fell due, as per the terms of the Rent Agreement, until the date of payment. Since the rent was due from March 2019 till May 2023, the interest shall also be calculated and levied for the said period.
Digitally signed by CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 40 of 56 SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:34:51 +0530
82. Interest on mesne profits should accrue from the date the mesne profits become due, that is, from June 2023 until the date the defendants vacate the suit property and make payment of the mesne profits.
Rate of Interest:
83. The plaintiff has prayed for 18% interest per annum, which is on the higher side. The court has the discretion to determine a reasonable rate of interest, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prevailing market rates, and the conduct of the parties.
84. Defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded ex parte. His failure to pay rent and to participate in the proceedings justifies awarding a reasonable rate of interest.
Defendant No. 2 contested the suit but his defense was found to be unsubstantiated. He also made a statement in Court on 14.05.2024 admitting he had no right to possession but still failed to vacate. This conduct also justifies awarding a reasonable rate of interest.
85. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the prevailing bank rates for lending, a rate of interest of 6% per annum is deemed just and equitable in this case. This rate adequately compensates the plaintiff for the loss of use of her money (both arrears and mesne profits) without being unduly harsh on the defendants.
86. Issue No. 4 is decided in the affirmative. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on both the arrears of rent and mesne profits.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 41 of 562025.02.07 17:35:04 +0530 Defendant No. 1 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4,23,800/- , calculated from the due date of each month's rent (as per the Rent Agreement) for the period of March 2019 to May 2023 until the date of actual payment.
87. Defendant No. 1 is further liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the mesne profits, calculated at the rates determined in Issue No. 3, from June 2023 until the date he vacates the suit property and pays the mesne profits. Defendant No. 2 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the mesne profits, calculated at the rates determined in Issue No. 3, from June 2023 until the date he vacates the suit property and pays the mesne profits.
88. The liability of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 for interest on mesne profits is joint and several, meaning the plaintiff can recover the interest amount from either defendant, or partly from each.
ISSUE NO. 5: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR A DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS PRAYED FOR? (OPP)
89. The onus to prove this issue lies on the Plaintiff (OPP). The plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents, associates, and attorneys, restraining them from selling, alienating, parting with possession, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 42 of 562025.02.07 17:35:12 +0530
90. The plaintiff's prayer for a permanent injunction, as stated in the plaint, is to restrain the defendants from:
a. Selling the suit property.
b. Alienating the suit property. c. Parting with possession of the suit property. d. Creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
91. This Court has already found, while adjudicating Issue No. 1, that the plaintiff has a superior possessory right to the suit property based on the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017 (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B). This establishes her legal right to enjoy peaceful possession and to protect her interest in the property.
92. Defendant No. 1, despite being the alleged tenant under the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2), did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte. This conduct suggests a lack of any legitimate claim to the property and can be interpreted as acquiescence to the plaintiff's right.
93. Defendant No. 2's claim of a prior agreement with Devika Arora was rejected as unsubstantiated. He has been found to have no legal right to possess the property. Furthermore, he made a statement in Court on 14.05.2024, admitting he has no right of possession and undertaking to vacate, yet he failed to do so. This conduct demonstrates a disregard for the plaintiff's superior possessory right and a propensity to act against her interests. Given Defendant No. 2's conduct and his unsubstantiated claim, there Digitally signed by SUMIT CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 43 of 56 SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:35:20 +0530 exists a reasonable apprehension that he might attempt to create third-party interests in the property or further obstruct the plaintiff's possession, especially after being found to have no legal right to remain there. Defendant No. 1's ex parte status also raises concerns, as his intentions regarding the property are unknown.
94. Monetary damages would likely be an inadequate remedy if the defendants were to sell, alienate, or create third-party interests in the suit property. Such actions could lead to protracted litigation, multiplicity of proceedings, and potentially irreparable harm to the plaintiff's possessory rights.
95. The balance of convenience favors granting the injunction. The plaintiff has established a prima facie case for a superior possessory right, while the defendants have no legitimate claim to the property. Preventing the defendants from dealing with the property in a manner prejudicial to the plaintiff's interests is necessary to protect her rights and prevent further litigation.
96. The plaintiff has successfully established the requirements for the grant of a permanent injunction. She has a superior possessory right to the suit property, and the defendants' conduct, particularly Defendant No. 2's continued occupation despite admitting he has no right, demonstrates a real threat of infringement of that right. Damages would be an inadequate remedy to protect the plaintiff's interests in the property. The balance of convenience also favors granting the injunction.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT Date:
DALAL DALAL 2025.02.07 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 44 of 56 17:35:33 +0530
97. Issue No. 5 is decided in the affirmative. The plaintiff, Ms. Kamal Kumar, is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against both defendants.
98. Defendant No. 1 (Sh. Ankush Verma) and Defendant No. 2 (Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sharma), their agents, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting on their behalf are hereby permanently restrained from:
a. Selling, or entering into any agreement to sell, the suit property bearing No. JG-2/204, Second Floor, Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018.
b. Alienating, or transferring in any manner, any right, title, or interest in the suit property.
c. Parting with possession of the suit property to any person other than the plaintiff, Ms. Kamal Kumar. d. Creating any third-party interest of any nature whatsoever in the suit property, including but not limited to mortgage, charge, lease, or license.
ISSUE NO. 6: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT SUIT? (OPD-2)
99. The onus to prove this issue lies on Defendant No. 2 (OPD-2). Defendant No. 2 has challenged the plaintiff's locus standi to file the present suit, essentially arguing that she lacks the legal standing to bring this action for possession and other reliefs.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 45 of 562025.02.07 17:35:40 +0530
100. Locus standi refers to the right of a party to bring an action or appear before a court. To have locus standi, a plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficient connection to and harm from the action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the context of a suit for possession of property, the plaintiff must show that they have a legally recognized right or interest in the property that entitles them to seek its possession.
101. Defendant No. 2's challenge to the plaintiff's locus standi is primarily based on the following arguments:
a. Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Ownership: Defendant No. 2 argues that the plaintiff's claim is based solely on an Agreement to Sell dated 14.11.2017 (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/B), which, according to him, does not confer absolute ownership rights.
b. Property is Leasehold and Non-Transferable: He asserts that the suit property is a leasehold property allotted to one Ms. Santosh Kaur and is non-transferable, implying that the plaintiff could not have acquired any valid rights from Devika Arora.
102. The plaintiff asserts that the Agreement to Sell and the registered GPA (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B) dated 14.11.2017, executed by the previous owner, Ms. Devika Arora, grant her a superior possessory right to the suit property, sufficient to maintain the present suit for possession.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:35:53 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 46 of 56 +0530
103. While it is true that an Agreement to Sell, by itself, does not transfer legal title, it is a legally recognized document that creates enforceable rights.
104. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 protects the rights of a transferee who has taken possession (or is entitled to possession) in part-performance of a contract, even if the legal title hasn't been formally transferred.
105. The Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW1/1), coupled with the registered GPA (Ex. PW4/A), which likely authorizes the plaintiff to manage and possess the property, creates a strong prima facie case for the plaintiff's right to possession.
106. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps (supra) has clarified that such transactions, though not creating ownership rights can be relied upon to claim possessory rights.
107. Defendant No. 2's assertion that the property is leasehold and non-transferable is entirely unsubstantiated. He has presented no evidence to support this claim. This challenge, therefore, remains a bare assertion and cannot be accepted without concrete proof.
108. The plaintiff is not claiming absolute ownership through a declaration of title. She is seeking possession based on her superior possessory right derived from the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA. A person with a superior possessory right can Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 47 of 56
2025.02.07 17:36:01 +0530 maintain a suit for possession against someone with no right or a weaker right, even if the plaintiff is not the absolute owner.
109. Defendant No. 2's claim of a prior agreement with Devika Arora has been thoroughly discredited due to the complete lack of evidence and his damaged credibility. Therefore, his claim cannot stand against the plaintiff's documented right.
110. Although the primary challenge to locus standi comes from Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 1's ex parte status is relevant.
He was the alleged tenant under the Rent Agreement (Ex. PW1/2). His failure to contest the suit, including the plaintiff's claim of deriving her right to possession from the Agreement to Sell and GPA, indirectly supports the plaintiff's standing to sue.
111. Defendant No. 2 has failed to prove that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to file the present suit. The plaintiff's claim is based on a registered Agreement to Sell and GPA, which, under the law, grant her a superior possessory right compared to Defendant No. 2, who has no legitimate claim. The plaintiff is not seeking a declaration of title but is exercising her right to recover possession from someone with an inferior or no right.
112. Issue No. 6 is decided in the negative. The plaintiff, Ms. Kamal Kumar, has the necessary locus standi to file the present suit for possession and other reliefs based on her superior possessory right derived from the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017 (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B). Defendant No. Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT Date:
DALAL DALAL 2025.02.07 17:36:09 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 48 of 56 +0530 2's challenge to her standing is unsubstantiated and, therefore, rejected.
ISSUE NO. 7: WHETHER THE SUIT IS WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OF ACTION? (OPD-2)
113. The onus to prove this issue lies on Defendant No. 2 (OPD-2). Defendant No. 2 contends that the plaintiff's suit is devoid of any cause of action and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
114. A "cause of action" refers to the bundle of facts that are material to be proved by the plaintiff to entitle him/her to the relief claimed in the suit. It is the factual situation that gives the plaintiff the right to sue the defendant. In a suit for possession of immovable property, the cause of action typically consists of:
a. The plaintiff's right to possess the property: This could be based on ownership, a lease agreement, or any other legally recognized right.
b. The defendant's wrongful act: This usually involves the defendant's unlawful possession or interference with the plaintiff's right to possession. c. The plaintiff's demand for possession (if required) and the defendant's refusal: This demonstrates that the dispute has ripened into a legal claim.
115. Defendant No. 2's argument that the suit lacks a cause of action is primarily based on his denial of the landlord-tenant relationship and his assertion of an independent right to possess the Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 49 of 56 DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:36:27 +0530 property based on an alleged transaction with Devika Arora. He essentially claims that the plaintiff has no right to seek his eviction.
116. The plaintiff's cause of action, as pleaded in the plaint and supported by the evidence, is summarized as follows:
a. Plaintiff's Right to Possession: The plaintiff claims a superior possessory right based on the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 14.11.2017 (Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B) executed with Ms. Devika Arora. This Court, while adjudicating Issue No. 1, has already found this right to be prima facie established.
b. Alleged Tenancy with Defendant No. 1: The plaintiff asserts that Defendant No. 1, Ankush Verma, took the property on rent for the use of Defendant No. 2, his employee. While the Court found no direct landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2, a valid tenancy with Defendant No. 1 was established.
c. Defendant No. 1's Failure to Vacate: The tenancy with Defendant No. 1 was terminated, either by efflux of time or through the legal notice, yet he failed to vacate. His ex parte status further strengthens this aspect. d. Defendant No. 2's Wrongful Possession: Defendant No. 2's continued occupation, despite having no proven legal right and having admitted to having no right of possession in his statement on 14.05.2024, constitutes wrongful possession against the plaintiff, who holds a superior possessory right.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT Date:
DALAL DALAL 2025.02.07 17:36:36 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 50 of 56 e. Demand and Refusal: The institution of the present suit is held to be notice to the parties and the refusal to vacate the possession even after that amounts to refusal.
117. Defendant No. 2's defense rested on his claim of a prior agreement with Devika Arora. However, this Court, in adjudicating Issue No. 1, has already rejected this claim as entirely unsubstantiated due to the complete lack of evidence.
118. The plaintiff's pleadings and evidence disclose a clear cause of action. She has asserted a right to possession based on documented transactions, alleged a tenancy with Defendant No. 1, and claimed wrongful possession by both defendants after the tenancy's termination. She has further claimed that her right to possession is superior to that of Defendant No. 2.
119. Defendant No. 2's denial of the tenancy and his unsubstantiated claim of a prior agreement do not negate the existence of a cause of action. They are defenses that have been considered and rejected on merits.
120. The ex parte status of Defendant No. 1 further strengthens the plaintiff's case, as it allows the Court to draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff regarding the alleged tenancy and his failure to vacate.
121. The plaintiff's suit is not without a cause of action. The pleadings and evidence disclose a set of facts that, if proved, entitle the plaintiff to the relief of possession. The plaintiff has asserted a Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:36:44 +0530 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 51 of 56 right to possession, alleged wrongful occupation by the defendants, and demonstrated a demand for possession that was refused.
122. Issue No. 7 is decided in the negative. The suit is not without any cause of action. The plaintiff has pleaded and presented evidence of a valid cause of action for possession of the suit property against both defendants. Defendant No. 2's defense, based on an unproven prior agreement, has been rejected, and his own admission further confirms the existence of a cause of action against him.
ISSUE NO. 8: WHETHER THE SUIT IS NOT PROPERLY VALUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COURT FEES? (OPD-2) ISSUE NO. 9: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PAID THE REQUISITE COURT FEES? (OPD-2)
123. As both issues are inter-related, they are being taken up together. The onus to prove these issues lies on Defendant No. 2 (OPD-2). Defendant No. 2 has objected to the valuation of the suit and the court fees paid by the plaintiff. However, he has not provided any specific grounds for his objection, nor has he suggested an alternative valuation or pointed out any specific deficiency in the court fees paid. Defendant No. 2 has further failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim that the suit is not properly valued or that the court fees paid are insufficient.
124. Therefore, the objections raised by Defendant No. 2 are without merit. In light of the above discussion, Issue No. 8 is decided in the negative and Issue No. 9 is also decided in the negative. Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 52 of 562025.02.07 17:36:54 +0530 FINAL CONCLUSION
125. In light of the above findings on all the issues, this Court concludes as follows:
a. Possession Defendant No. 1: The Plaintiff has duly proved a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendant No. 1, and the tenancy stood lawfully terminated on 08.06.2023. Consequently, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property (bearing No. JG-2/204, Second Floor, Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018) from Defendant No. 1.
Defendant No. 2: Although no landlord-tenant relationship was established with Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiff has shown a superior possessory right to the suit property, rendering Defendant No. 2's occupation unauthorized. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from Defendant No. 2 as well.
b. Arrears of Rent (Issue No. 2) - The Plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent of ₹4,23,800/- from Defendant No. 1 for the period March 2019 to May 2023, as calculated in the judgment. No arrears of rent are awarded against Defendant No. 2, since no landlord-tenant relationship exists between him and the Plaintiff.
c. Damages/Mesne Profits (Issue No. 3) - Both Defendants, having continued in unauthorized occupation after Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL 2025.02.07 Date:CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 53 of 56
17:37:02 +0530 08.06.2023, are jointly and severally liable to pay mesne profits to the Plaintiff from June 2023 until they hand over vacant possession. The mesne profits shall be calculated at the following rates (or as otherwise specified in the judgment):
From June 2023 to May 2024: ₹9,680/- per month From June 2024 to May 2025: ₹10,648/- per month And so on, with a 10% annual increase each June, until possession is delivered.
d. Interest (Issue No. 4) - The Plaintiff shall be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum on:
The arrears of rent (₹4,23,800/-) from the date each month's rent fell due (March 2019 onward) until realization.
The accrued mesne profits from June 2023 until the date of payment, calculated monthly as the sums become due.
Defendants No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for interest on the mesne profits, while Defendant No. 1 alone is liable for interest on the arrears of rent. e. Permanent Injunction (Issue No. 5) - A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining Defendants No. 1 and 2 (and all persons claiming through or under them) from selling, alienating, parting with possession, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property. f. Locus Standi, Cause of Action, and Valuation (Issues No. 6, 7, 8, 9) - The Plaintiff has been found to have proper locus standi and a valid cause of action. The Defendant No. 2 has Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:37:09 CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 54 of 56 +0530 failed to establish improper valuation and deficiency in Court Fees.
RELIEF GRANTED AND DIRECTIONS
126. Following reliefs are granted:
a. Decree of Possession - The Plaintiff is awarded a decree of possession against both Defendants No. 1 and 2. They shall vacate and hand over the suit property (Flat No. JG-2/204, Second Floor, Vikas Puri, New Delhi - 110018) to the Plaintiff within 30 days from the date of this judgment. b. Arrears of Rent - Defendant No. 1 shall pay the Plaintiff ₹4,23,800/- as arrears of rent, together with 6% simple interest per annum from the respective due dates until realization.
c. Mesne Profits - Both Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay mesne profits at the specified monthly rates (with a 10% annual increment each June) from June 2023 until delivery of vacant possession. Interest at 6% per annum is awarded on the monthly mesne profits from the date each sum becomes due until realization. d. Permanent Injunction - A perpetual injunction is granted, restraining Defendants No. 1 and 2, their agents, employees, and all persons acting under or on their behalf from creating any third-party rights or transferring, alienating, or parting with possession of the suit property in any manner.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 55 of 56
2025.02.07 17:37:18 +0530 e. Costs - Costs of the suit are awarded in favor of the Plaintiff and against both Defendants jointly and severally, to be assessed and certified in the decree.
127. Let a decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliances.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Pronounced in the open Court on 31.01.2025 but digitally signed the judgment on 07.02.20251 Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.02.07 17:37:37 +0530 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE-04 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI 1 The delay in digitally signing and uploading the judgment dated 31.01.2025 occurred due to the following reasons:
a. 31.01.2025: Proofreading of the judgment was required but could not be completed due to a heavy board.
b. 01.02.2025: The undersigned was on half-day leave in the afternoon session, leaving insufficient time for proofreading and signing. c. 02.02.2025: Sunday (Court Holiday). d. 03.02.2025: The board was exceptionally heavy, with 52 matters listed, including 12 land acquisition cases, which required substantial time, leaving no opportunity for proofreading and signing. e. 04.02.2025: The undersigned was nominated for training at the Delhi Judicial Academy.
f. 05.02.2025: The courts were closed due to the Delhi State Assembly Elections.
g. 06.02.2025: The undersigned was again nominated for training at the Delhi Judicial Academy.
Accordingly, the judgment was digitally signed and uploaded on 07.02.2025 after completing the necessary formalities.CS DJ ADJ 869/21 Page 56 of 56