Delhi District Court
Savitri Pandey vs Ray Amit Kumar on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SARTHAK PANWAR:
CIVIL JUDGE-02: SOUTH WEST,
DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 1110/2021
CNR No. DLSW03-002101-2021
SMT. SAVITRI PANDEY W/O SH. B.N. PANDEY
R/O RZ D-54, DABRI EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI-110045
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
RAY AMIT KUMAR W/O SH. RAM RATTAN RAY
R/O E-153, DDA FLATS, POCKETS-3
BINDAPUR, UTTAM NAGAR, , NEW DELHI-110059
ALSO AT: 30, KURMITOLA CHAPTA, VILLAGE/TOWN
CHANDCHAUR ANCHAL-UJIYARPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR
THANA- UJIYARPUR, BIHAR-848114
......Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, MESNE PROFITS AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 11.10.2021
Date of reserving judgment : 23.01.2026
Date of judgment : 24.01.2026
Final Judgment : Decreed.
11 / 11
Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar
Digitally signed
SARTHAK by SARTHAK
PANWAR
PANWAR Date: 2026.01.24
15:42:17 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed for seeking possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction. The brief facts of the present case as per the plaint are that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through her son namely Sh. Vinod Pandey (Attorney Holder of Plaintiff). It is further averred that plaintiff is owner of property bearing no. E-153, DDA Flats, Pocket-3, Bindapur, Dwarka, New Delhi-110059 consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor and one room/toilet bathroom at the top (hereinafter referred to as suit property) which was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 17.09.2020. It is further averred that the terms of tenancy were reduced into writing by way of rent agreement dated 21.09.2020 and it was agreed between the parties that defendant will pay monthly rent to the plaintiff in advance on or before 10th day of every month as per English calender excluding charges for electricity, water, PNG etc. It is further averred that the tenancy was terminable after 01 month notice by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is further averred that after sometime defendant requested plaintiff to install PNG pipe line in kitchen and considering the request of defendant, plaintiff executed the work of installation of PNG at her own cost, thereafter, plaintiff came to know that defendant had availed several car loans from different financial institutions and is not paying the due installments of the aforesaid loans due to which recovery agents were visiting the premises on every alternative days and defendant used to quarrel with them, and thus was breaching peace and harmony of the society. It is further averred that plaintiff requested the defendant to mend his behaviour but defendant threatened to implicate plaintiff and her family member in false cases. It is further averred that defendant used to quarrel with the meter readers Digitally signed SARTHAK by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:42:25 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar of PNG and on 06.12.2020 defendant extended threat to plaintiff that he will face consequences if due to kitchen smoke anything happens to the family members of defendant and plaintiff resolved the problem at his own cost despite having no fault on his part. Thereafter, ultimately due to aforesaid acts, threats, nuisance and restraining of meter readers, the defendant breached the contract of tenancy, and plaintiff sent legal notice dated 29.12.2020 and requested defendant to vacate the premises and handover the vacant physical possession to the plaintiff, but defendant did not paid any heed towards the request of the plaintiff. It is further averred that defendant has not paid rent of Rs. 32,000/- for the month of April and August 2021, and has also not paid the balance rent amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the month of May, June, July, September and October 2021, and total amount of Rs. 42,000/- is due apart from unpaid PNG bill amount of Rs. 7121.43/-. It is further averred that the tenancy commenced on 17.09.2020 as per rent agreement dated 21.09.2020 and further continued even after expiry of initial time period of 11 months (i.e. after expiry of 16.08.2021) by efflux of time which was ultimately terminated by legal notice dated 01.09.2021 which was duly served upon the defendant and despite which defendant failed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. suit property and continued to occupy it illegally. Thereafter, the present suit for recovery of possession, Mense Profits and Permanent Injunction is filed.
2. Thereafter, written statement to the suit of plaintiff was filed on behalf of defendant, wherein defendant had raised the objection that plaintiff suit is not maintainable as plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit as there is no rent agreement between plaintiff and defendant. It is further averred that the present suit is not filed by the plaintiff with clean hands as defendant had never signed any rent agreement with the plaintiff before any notary public and Mr. Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:42:31 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar Vinod Pandey, SPA Holder of the plaintiff had taken signatures of defendant in good faith on some blank papers by saying that those papers will be used for rent agreement. On merits, it has been alleged that Mr. Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder of Plaintiff) had allowed Sh. Avinash to live at top floor of the suit premises and Mr. Vinod Pandey used to provoke Mr. Avinash to create nuisance with wife and daughters of defendant. It is further averred that plaintiff had never executed any rent agreement in favour of defendant and the terms and conditions of rented accommodation was verbally fixed by Sh. Vinod Pandey and a false rent agreement is filed before the court. It is further averred that despite repeated request PNG bill is deliberately kept with the plaintiff and same was never handover to defendant. It is further averred that no rent amount is due towards plaintiff and no PNG bill is due towards plaintiff as same is never handed over to defendant by the plaintiff. It is further mentioned that defendant had paid the PNG bill through cheque. Thus, defendant has prayed for dismissal of present suit.
3. Thereafter, replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of plaintiff, wherein he again reiterated the contents of the plaint and further denied the contrary averments made by the defendant in his written statement. It has been further alleged by the SPA Holder of plaintiff that his mother Smt. Savitri Pandey (plaintiff/owner of suit property) had prior to execution of rent agreement dated 21.09.2020 had verbally authorized him to do all necessary acts including the act to let out the suit property in question on behalf of her. It is further averred that defendant himself appeared and signed the rent agreement before the notary. It is further averred that suit of plaintiff be decreed in her favour. SARTHAK by Digitally signed SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:42:40 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar
4. Thereafter, on 09.06.2022, Ld. Predecessor of this Court examined the defendant under Order X CPC. Thereafter, vide separate order under Order XII Rule 6 CPC defendant was directed to vacate the suit property immediately after expiry of statutory period of appeal and present suit was partly decreed in favour of plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Thereafter, on very same day following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 2,79,652/- as damages from17.08.2021 to 09.10.2021?
OPP. (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to sum of Rs. 46,000/- as prayed for ?
OPP.
(iii) Relief.
5. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by defendant and the aforesaid order under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was challenged by the defendant in the Court of Ld. ADJ-01 South-West District, Dwarka Court and as per order dated 19.09.2022 the keys of suit property were handed over by appellant /defendant to respondent /plaintiff before the Ld. ADJ-01 South-West District, Dwarka Court and the aforesaid decree of possession in under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was complied with by defendant and accordingly, the appeal was disposed off by Ld. ADJ-01 South-West District, Dwarka Court
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for PE and Mr. Vinod Pandey, SPA Holder of plaintiff had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and has relied upon the following documents i.e.:
Nature of documents Exhibited as 1. Copy of Special Power of Attorney Marked as Mark A Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR 15:42:47 Date: 2026.01.24 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar dated 25.08.2021
2. Copy of Sale Deed dated 16.05.2018 Marked as Mark B
3. Site plan Ex. PW-1/3
4. Copy of rent agreement dated Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) 21.09.2020
5. Legal notice under Section 106 TP Ex. PW-1/5 Act dated 01.09.2021
6. Postal receipt Ex. PW-1/6 (objected to on mode of proof)
7. Thereafter, PW-1 during course of trial was cross examined at length and was discharged, and ultimately vide order dated 24.03.2025, PE was closed upon statement made by Mr. Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder of plaintiff). Thereafter, matter was listed for DE and defendant had filed evidence by way of affidavit which was taken on record. However, despite being given multiple opportunities defendant failed to subject himself for his examination-in-chief and for his cross examination, due to which ultimately his right to lead DE was closed on 17.11.2025 and matter was listed for final arguments. During the final arguments the clarification was sought from the plaintiff qua the discrepancy in the amount claimed by him in his plaint and evidence affidavit. Thereafter, statement of SPA holder of plaintiff was recorded as per which he had claimed rent in the sum of Rs. 38,000/- from 17.09.2020 to 16.08.2021 and PNG bill in the sum of Rs. 5459.23/- for aforesaid period alongwith rent from 17.08.2021 to 19.09.2022 the date on which the possession was delivered to him before Ld. Appellate Court in compliance order/judgement passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC of this court.
Digitally signed by SARTHAK PANWARSARTHAK Date:
PANWAR 2026.01.24
15:42:54
+0530
11 / 11
Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar
8. In the final arguments, Ld. counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff has been able to prove its case to the touchstone of preponderance of probability as per plaint and documents filed alongwith it, and also through uncontroverted testimony of PW-1. It is further submitted that case of the plaintiff is further fortified by the admissions made by defendant in his written statement as well as in his statement given before the court by way of his examination under Order X CPC as per which defendant had admitted the existence of landlord- tenant relationship between him and the plaintiff, and on the basis of which suit is already partly decreed in his favour by way of a judgment passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. It is further argued that the aforesaid part judgment/decree has also been satisfied by the defendant by handing over the keys of the suit property to the plaintiff before the Ld. Appellate Court on 19.09.2022. It is further averred that the defendant right to lead DE was closed by this court vide order dated 26.11.2025 and arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages for illegal/unlawful occupation of suit property alongwith interest are yet to be paid. Thus, it has been prayed that suit be decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Despite multiple opportunities defendant has failed to lead final arguments and ultimately his right to lead final arguments was closed by this court.
9. I have heard the rival submissions made by the parties and have carefully perused the record of the present case. My findings qua all the issues framed in the present case on the basis of material available on record and in light of submissions made on behalf of parties is as follows:
Digitally signed by SARTHAKSARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date:
2026.01.24 Issues 15:43:00 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 2,79,652/- as damages from 17.08.2021 to 09.10.2021?
OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to sum of Rs. 46,000/- as
prayed for ?
OPP.
10. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition of evidence, this court deems fit to decide both the aforesaid issues together. The onus of proving the aforesaid two issues is upon the plaintiff and plaintiff had filed the present suit through her son Mr. Vinod Pandey SPA Holder who has examined himself as PW-1. During his examination in chief PW-1 reiterated the contents of the plaint and tendered the documentary evidences i.e. rent agreement, copy of Special Power of Attorney, copy of sale deed, legal notice etc. as mentioned aforesaid. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case defendant has merely filed written statement and his right to lead defence evidence was closed vide order dated 26.11.2025 after giving multiple opportunities for the same. Since, defendant had not subjected himself for his examination-in-chief and cross examination in accordance with provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 therefore, his written statement cannot be read into evidence in his favour in absence of his testimony on oath and his cross examination by the opposite party to the touchstone of his credibility. Further, as per cross examination of PW-1 the only defence which has been taken by the defendant is that the Sh Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder of plaintiff) was not the owner of the suit property and he was not legally competent to rent out the suit property on behalf of plaintiff and thus, plaintiff is not entitled to arrears of rent. However, the same does not hold any merit for the reasons, firstly the plaintiff has come to the court with the Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR Date: PANWAR 2026.01.24 15:43:07 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar clean hands and has filed the suit through her son Sh. Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder) and it has been clearly stated in the replication as well as in the cross examination by PW-1 Sh. Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder) that he as a son of plaintiff has been authorized/permitted orally by the plaintiff to lease out the suit property on behalf of plaintiff. Secondly, merely an absence of any written agreement/Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of his son Sh.
Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder) to lease out the suit property prior to its letting out to defendant does not ipso facto invalidate the aforesaid lease as the act of the plaintiff Smt. Savitri Pandey in filing of present suit against the defendant by execution of SPA in favour of her son Sh. Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder) amounts to a implied ratification of the previous acts done by her son Sh. Vinod Pandey (SPA Holder) in leasing out of suit property to the defendant by creating an ex- post facto agency with retroactive effect, reliance in this regard can also be placed upon Section 196 and 197 of Indian Contract Act 1872 wherein it is held that:
196. Right of person as to acts done for him without his authority-
effect of ratification Where act are done by one person on behalf of another, but without his knowledge or authority, he may elect to ratify or to disown such acts. If he ratifies them, the same effects will follow as if they had been performed by his authority.
197. Ratification may be expressed or implied Ratification may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of the person on whose behalf the acts are done.
Thirdly, the defendant by his own admissions in his examination under Order 10 CPC has given a statement under oath on 09.06.2022 wherein he Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:43:14 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar has clearly admitted landlord-tenant relationship between him and plaintiff. The statement is reproduced as under;
" I am the tenant in the above-mentioned suit property. I have been living in the suit property since September 2020. The rent was fixed at Rs.16,000/- per month. I have paid rent till September 2021, thereafter I did not pay the rent. However, I have paid the electricity bill. The plaintiff is my landlady. I have duly paid rent till September, 2021 to son of the plaintiff Sh.Vinod Pandey".
Fourthly, defendant as per his own conduct voluntarily handed over the keys of the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent before the Ld. Appellate Court in satisfaction of the order/judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC of this court passed on basis of admissions made by the defendant himself regarding the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties and ultimately the aforesaid order has attained finality. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, admissions and conduct the defendant, he cannot be allowed to dispute the tenancy itself on the basis of above-said technical plea and deprive the plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of his own property.
11. So far as it relates to the amount due in the present matter the SPA Holder of the plaintiff vide his separate statement has clarified that the rent in the sum of Rs. 38,000/- from 17.09.2020 to 16.08.2021 and PNG bill in the sum of Rs. 5459.23/- for aforesaid period alongwith rent from 17.08.2021 to 19.09.2022 (i.e. the date on which the possession was delivered to him before Ld. Appellate Court in compliance order/judgement passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by this court) is due to him alongwith interest. In the considered opinion of this court, sufficient evidence has been lead by the plaintiff Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR Date: PANWAR 2026.01.24 15:43:22 +0530 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar in the present case for coming to the conclusion that defendant is under legal obligation to pay the outstanding rent as aforesaid alongwith interest. However, no PNG bill has been exhibited during examination of PW-1, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence in his support the same amount cannot be awarded to the plaintiff. Thus, both the issues are decided in favour of plaintiff.
(iii) Relief In view of my findings on issue no. 1 and 2, the plaintiff is held entitled for a total rent in the sum of Rs. 2,68,560/- i.e. Rs. 38000/- for the period from 17.09.2020 to 16.08.2021 and Rs. 2,30,560/- ( i.e. calculated @ 17,600/- per month as increased rent @ 10 % per month as per previous rent agreement) for a period from 17.08.2021 to 19.09.2022 (i.e. date of handing over of vacant possession of suit property) alongwith interest @ 9 % per month as pendent lite and future interest from date of filing of this suit till its realization.
12. No orders to cost.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedSARTHAK by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:43:29 +0530 (SARTHAK PANWAR) Civil Judge-02, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi/24.01.2026 11 / 11 Smt. Savitri Pandey Vs. Sh. Ray Amit Kumar