Delhi High Court - Orders
Ankita Singh R/O G-54, 1St Floor, Near ... vs 1. Mr. Navin Jain S/O Sh. H.C. Jain R/O ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 1124/2025 & CM APPL. 78100/2025 (stay)
ANKITA SINGH
R/O G-54, 1ST FLOOR,
NEAR ARUNA PARK
SHAKARPUR, DELHI-110092 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate
versus
1. MR. NAVIN JAIN
S/o Sh. H.C. Jain
R/o G-54, Shakarpur Delhi-110092
2. MR. AJAY KUMAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Bhagwati Singh
R/o G-54, Shakarpur Delhi-110092 .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhaskar Tiwari, Mr. Ramakant
Shukla, Ms. Priscilla Kom, Advocates
(DHCLSC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 26.02.2026
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, against the Judgment and decree dated 25.08.2025 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiffs/Respondents for Possession and for Mesne Profits @ Rs.7,500/- per month along with the interest @9% p.a., has been decreed, by learned District Judge, Delhi.
2. The Plaintiffs/Respondents had filed a CS No. 489/2022 against the Respondent No. 2, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh/Defendant No. 1 for Possession This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34 and Mesne Profits.
3. It was stated that the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 was the owner of the Suit Property bearing No. G-54, First Floor, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 (hereinafter referred to as Suit property), who rented the property to Defendant No. 1/Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, on rent vide Rent Agreement dated 09.12.2018 @ Rs.7,500/- per month for a period of 11 months only, which was to expire on 08.11.2019.
4. After the expiry of the tenancy period, the Defendant No. 1, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh requested the Plaintiff that he was unable to pay the rent of Rs.7,500/-. He made a request to shift to the ground floor on the reduced rent of Rs.6,000/- per month. Though the Rent Agreement dated 11.05.2019 was duly executed, but the same was never implemented and Defendant No. 1 never shifted to the ground floor.
5. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant No. 1 last paid partial rent of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) for the month of April, 2020 and thereafter, has not paid any rent.
6. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant No. 1 through his wife, filed false Civil Cases against him, which are pending adjudication. The Defendant also committed theft of water pump/motor, for which FIR No. ED-SP-000551 dated 10.04.2021 has been registered against the Defendant No. 1. On 25.08.2022, the Plaintiff got the water pipe repaired, but the Defendant No. 1 thereafter damaged and broke them; he also broke the glass of windows of the first floor property. He kept one Rohit, a gunda in the suit Property, who had been constantly threatening the Plaintiff with dire consequences for the last two years, as and when the Plaintiff tried to enter the Suit Premises.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34
7. The Defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since 09.04.2020. A Legal Notice dated 17.05.2022 was served upon the Defendant, to terminate the tenancy and also to pay the rent dues of Rs.1,81,500/- along with the interest @18% p.a. aside from paying Mesne Profits.
8. The Suit was accordingly filed for Possession, Recovery of Arrears of Rent and Mesne Profits.
9. The Defendant No. 1 was served, but was proceeded ex-parte. The present Appellant, Ms. Ankita Singh, wife of the Defendant No. 1 thereafter, got impleaded as Defendant No. 2, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. She filed a Written Statement wherein she claimed that the Plaint did not disclose any cause of action; the Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts.
10. It was explained that the Defendant No. 2, wife of Defendant No. 1 had developed temperamental differences and that she has been living as a tenant, since 2018 and paying rent in cash, regularly. However, the Plaintiff in connivance with the Defendant No. 1, has filed the present Suit, to harass the Defendant No. 2.
11. She claimed that she was a tenant under the Plaintiff for more than six years. She had been inducted as a tenant in respect of one room set situated on first floor of the Suit Property, at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- excluding water and electricity charges. She claimed to be lawful tenant, who had paid the rent in cash till 31.08.2021 and has paid the electricity charges till October, 2021 and that nothing remained due.
12. The Defendant No. 2 claimed that the Plaintiff failed to issue the rent receipts, despite repeated requests. It was claimed that the Plaintiff was trying to forcibly evict the Defendant No. 2; on 26.08.2021, some miscreants This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34 had been sent to her, to vacate and hand over the possession of the tenanted premises. Such threats were extended on 17.12.2021.
13. She filed a Civil Suit No. 122/2022 titled Ankita Singh vs. Navin Jain for Permanent Injunction, in the Court of learned ACJ, but was dismissed in default on 02.08.2023. Thereafter, she had moved an Application for restoration of the Suit, which is pending.
14. On merits, all the averments made in the Plaint, were denied and her defence as stated above, was reiterated.
15. No, replication has been filed by the Respondents.
16. The Issues on the pleadings were framed on 02.12.2024, which are as under:
a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of possession in respect of first floor of property bearing no. G-54, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 as prayed for? OPP
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent with interest, as prayed for? OPP
c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mesne profits, as prayed for? OPP
d) Whether the suit of plaintiff comes under the purview of Section 50 of DRC Act? OPD
e) Relief.
17. The Plaintiff in support of his case, examined himself as PW-1.
18. The Defendant No. 2/Appellant despite several opportunities, failed to lead evidence, which was ultimately closed on 06.08.2025.
19. The learned District Judge, in the Impugned Judgment dated 25.08.2025 observed that there was an admission of relationship of landlord This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34 and tenant and also the termination of tenancy by service of Legal Notice. On appreciation of evidence, it was concluded that the rent was Rs.7,500/-. Consequently, the Suit for Possession along with the Mesne Profits @Rs.7,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2020 till the possession was handed over along with Rs.1,500/- as arrears of rent for April, 2020 along with the interest @9% p.a., was decreed vide judgememt/Decree dated 25.08.2025.
20. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present First Regular Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Defendant No. 2, Ms. Ankita Singh. The grounds of challenge are that the Plaintiff had neither established the rate of rent as Rs.7,500/- nor was the rent at this rate, ever paid by the Appellant. It has not been considered that the Rent Agreement relied upon by the Plaintiff, was signed by the Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 2 and not by the Appellant. There was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Plaintiff. Furthermore, it is claimed that the Rent Agreement was forged and was not binding on the Appellant. Pertinently, the Appellant was not impleaded as a party initially, but was impleaded after a one year on her Application for impleadment.
21. It is stated that the impugned Judgment is liable to be set-aside. Submissions heard and the record perused.
22. In Order to succeed in a Suit for Possession against a tenant, the following facts need to be proved; (i) that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; (ii) the rate of rent is more than Rs.3,500/- and (iii) that there has been termination of tenancy by serving the Legal Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
23. The Plaintiff as PW-1, had deposed that he had entered into a Rent Agreement, Ex.PW-1/2 dated 09.12.2018 with Defendant No. 1, Mr. Ajay This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34 Kumar Singh in respect of First Floor portion of the property in question @ Rs.7,500/- for a period of 11 months. He further deposed that the subsequent Rent Agreement dated 11.05.2019, Ex.PW-1/3 was again executed between him and the Defendant No. 1, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh in respect of the Ground Floor of the property @Rs.6,000/- per month commencing from 11.05.2019. Consequently, the Second Rent Agreement dated 11.05.2019, Ex.PW-1/3, was executed. However, despite the execution of the Second Legal Rent Agreement, the Defendant No. 1 failed to shift to the Ground Floor. He last paid the rent on April, 2020 in the sum of Rs.6,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.1,500/-.
24. The Plaintiff had explained in his Plaint, as well as in his evidence as PW-1, that the Defendant No. 1 finding it difficult to pay the rent of Rs.7,500/-, requested to shift to Ground Floor @Rs.6,000/- per month commencing from 11.05.2019.
25. It was deposed by the Plaintiff that because the Defendant No. 1 was not forthcoming in paying the rent, he requested him many a times to vacate the premises but when he failed to do so, he served the Legal Notice, Ex.PW-1/4, dated 17.05.2022 and thereafter, filed the Suit seeking the Possession and the Mesne Profits.
26. The most significant aspect in this case is that the Defendant No. 1, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh failed to contest the Suit but his wife, Ms. Ankita Singh, the Appellant got impleaded as the Defendant No. 2 and contested the Suit as she had been in the possession of the Suit premises.
27. Pertinently, both the Rent Agreements, Ex.PW-1/2 in respect of the First Floor and the Rent Agreement, Ex.PW-1/3 in respect of Ground Floor, were put to the Plaintiff in the cross-examination, who specifically stated This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34 that both the Rent Agreements had the signatures of Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh. The Second Lease Agreement, Ex.PW-1/3 also bore his thumb impression.
28. The Plaintiff in his cross-examination by Appellant, further clarified that the Defendant No. 1 has always resided at the First Floor, but there are some matrimonial disputes between him and his wife/Appellant. He further deposed in his cross-examination, that he had received the bill of Rs.9,662/- from the Delhi Jal Board w.e.f. 14.02.2024 till 18.04.2024 in respect of the tenanted premises, which has not been paid. He admitted that the Defendant No. 2/Appellant had been paying the electricity charges for the First Floor and is residing therein. He also admitted that the Defendant No. 2 had filed a Civil Suit against him, before the learned Civil Judge.
29. From the evidence of PW-1, it emerges that there was no challenge to the execution of the Rent Agreement or to the rate of rent. There is not even a suggestion given that the Defendant No.2/Appellant was inducted as a tenant and the rent rate was Rs.3,000/-, as was asserted by her. She pertinently, also failed to step into the witness box or adduce any evidence to prove that she was ever inducted in the Suit premises as the tenant @Rs.3,000/- per month.
30. The testimony of the Plaintiff coupled with the documents clearly established that it was the Defendant No. 1, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, husband of the Appellant, who was inducted as a tenant and because of some matrimonial disputes, he discontinued living in the property, while Defendant No. 2/Appellant, his wife continued to be in the possession. She in fact, had been regularly paying the electricity charges upto October, 2021.
31. The entire evidence thus, establishes that the tenancy was between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1. There was no tenancy between the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34 Plaintiff and the Appellant, but she as a family member of the Defendant No. 1/tenant, had been residing therein. Even though she asserted her status as tenant, but the evidence on record, establishes that there was no independent Rent Agreement with her.
32. It has also been proved by the Plaintiff that the rate of rent was Rs.7,500/- per month. The Plaintiff had limited his claim for Mesne Profits, to the rate of rent @Rs.7,500/- p.m.
33. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and decreed the Suit for Possession, Arrears of Rent of Rs.1,500/- for the month of April, 2020 and for Mesne Profits @Rs.7,500/- per month from 01.05.2020 till the date of possession is handed over along with interest @9% p.a.
34. There is no infirmity in the Impugned Judgment/Decree dated 25.08.2025. The Appeal is without merits and is hereby, dismissed and disposed of accordingly. The pending Application is also disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J FEBRUARY 26, 2026/RS This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 20:41:34