Delhi District Court
Balvinder Singh vs Smt. Rajni Bala on 27 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. UMANG JOSHI
CIVIL JUDGE-04, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No. 208/2020
Balvinder Singh
S/o Saroop Singh
R/o B-1/155, 2nd Floor
Phase-2, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 ........Plaintiff
Versus
Rajni Bala
D/o Mathura Dass
R/o B-1216, 1st Floor
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052
........Defendant
Date of Institution : 22.01.2020
Date of Reserving Judgment : 22.07.2025
Date of Decision : 27.10.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, ARREARS OF RENT,
AND DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of possession along with the relief of arrears of rent, damages and occupation charges. The plaintiff in the present suit has prayed for a decree of possession in respect of the property bearing no. B-1216, First Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter referred as the suit property/tenanted premises). Additionally, the plaintiff has also prayed for UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI Civil Suit no. 208/2020 JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:14:37 +05'30' Page no. 1 of 25 *The undersigned has been transferred vide order no. 41/DHC/Gaz/G-7/VI E.2(a)/2025 dated 17.10.2025 and since the judgment had already been reserved prior thereto, the same is being pronounced in compliance with the said order.
recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the arrears of rent along with occupation charges @ Rs. 1500/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.
A. Plaintiff's case as averred in the plaint:
2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case as averred in the plaint is that plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing no. B-1216, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052. It is further stated that the defendant had approached the plaintiff to let out the first floor of the said property on rent for a period of two years and thereafter the plaintiff agreed to let out the suit property to the defendant on rent. It is further stated that a rent agreement was also executed between the plaintiff and defendant and the said agreement was duly registered and the said tenancy was created for a period of two years commencing from 26.04.2019. It is further stated that as per the said rent agreement, the monthly rent of the tenanted premises was fixed as Rs. 20,000/- excluding water and electricity charges. It is further stated that the defendant did not pay any rent from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019 despite repeated requests and demands made by plaintiff and that pursuant to several requests of the plaintiff, the defendant gave two cheques of Rs. 30,000/- each dated 13.09.2019 and 15.09.2019 to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to present the same. It is further stated that the plaintiff had presented one of the said cheques for encashment on two occasions but the same was returned unpaid. It is further stated that the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent despite various requests made by the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide legal notice dated 21.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 which was duly served upon the defendant on 30.11.2019 but the defendant neither replied nor complied with the said notice and the defendant has failed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is further UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:14:51 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 2 of 25 stated that the defendant is in illegal occupation and possession of the suit property and the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- along with the occupation charges to the plaintiff @ Rs. 1500/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Therefore, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief as mentioned in paragraph no.1.
B. Defendant's case as per the Written Statement:
3. The defendant in the written statement has denied the case put forth by the plaintiff and has averred that the plaintiff has filed a false suit and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Furthermore, the defendant in the written statement has also taken certain preliminary objections i.e. that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and that the plaintiff has filed false, forged and fabricated documents. The defendant has further averred that the rent of the suit property was fixed as Rs. 2000/- per month instead of Rs. 20,000/- per month and has accordingly contended that the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The defendant has further contended that the suit property falls in a slum area and that the present suit is not maintainable and is barred by Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act and has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
C. Replication:
4. In pursuance of the written statement filed by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the replication in which the averments of the plaint have been reiterated and the defence put forth by the defendant in the written statement has been denied.
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:15:01 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 3 of 25
D. Issues framed in the suit:
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 08.08.2022 by the Ld. predecessor court:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession in his favour and against the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent of Rs. 1,20,000/-
along with damages in his favour and against the defendant? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rent/occupation charges @ Rs. 1500/- from the date of filing of suit till vacant possession in his favour and against the defendant? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendant? OPD
5. Whether the documents of the plaintiff are forged and fabricated?
OPD
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Slum Improvement and Clearance Act and Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD
7. Relief.
E. Plaintiff's Evidence:
6. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1.
PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents to prove its case which are as follows:
i. Copy of ownership papers Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) (OSR).
ii. Copy of rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR).
iii. Copies of cheque Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) (colly).
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:15:10 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 4 of 25
iv. Screenshot of whatsapp chat Ex. PW-1/4.
v. Copy of legal notice along with delivery receipt Ex. PW-1/5 (colly).
vi. Site plan Ex.PW-1/6.
vii. Court fees Ex. PW-1/7.
viii. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/8.
7. Thereafter, PW-1 was duly cross examined by the counsel for defendant.
Furthermore, the plaintiff also examined a summoned witness from the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi namely one Ms. Manju, Sr. Assistant as PW-2. The said summoned witness had brought the summoned record i.e. the lease agreement dated 16.05.2019 having registration no. 5108 in book no. 1, volume no. 7640 at page no. 63 to 67 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant qua the tenanted premises and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1(OSR).
8. Furthermore, no other witnesses were examined by the plaintiff to prove its case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence.
F. Defendant's evidence:
9. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant stepped into the witness box and examined herself as DW-1. DW-1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. Thereafter, DW-1 was duly cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff. Furthermore, no other witnesses were examined by the defendant and accordingly, the defendant's evidence was closed.
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:15:19 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 5 of 25
G. Final arguments:
10.Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments and thereafter final arguments were heard at length from both the parties.
11.I have heard the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record thoroughly.
H. Findings on Issues:
Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession in his favour and against the defendant? OPP
12.The onus to prove the present issue was upon the plaintiff. It is a settled position of law that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs in order to prove its case and the initial burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of possession of the suit property/tenanted premises from the defendant along with the recovery of arrears of rent and occupation charges/mesne profits. It is the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises and that the plaintiff had let out the said property to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- for a period of two years commencing from 26.04.2019 vide rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR). The plaintiff has averred that the defendant being the tenant of the plaintiff has failed to pay the arrears of rent qua the tenanted premises from 27.06.2019 despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff and that the defendant has also failed to vacate and handover possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff despite termination of tenancy by the plaintiff which has necessitated the filing of the present suit.
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:15:28 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 6 of 25
13.In support of his case, the plaintiff has predominantly placed reliance on the copy of rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) which is the registered rent agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant qua the tenanted premises on 16.05.2019. Perusal of the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) shows that the tenanted premises was let out by the plaintiff i.e. the landlord to the defendant i.e. the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- and the said tenancy was created for a period of 24 months i.e. two years commencing from 26.04.2019. It is pertinent to mention that as per the said rent agreement, the rate of rent was fixed as Rs. 20,000/- for a period of one year i.e. from 26.04.2019 to 25.04.2020 and thereafter the rent was to be increased to Rs. 22,000/- i.e. from 26.04.2020 to 25.04.2021. Therefore, the registered rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) placed on record by the plaintiff clearly establishes the landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also placed on record the copy of ownership papers Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) (OSR), copies of cheque Ex. PW-1/3 (colly) (OSR), screenshot of whatsapp chat Ex. PW-1/4, copy of legal notice along with tracking report Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) and the site plan Ex.PW-1/6 in support of his case. Perusal of Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) (OSR) shows that it is a copy of a sale deed dated 19.10.2004 by way of which the plaintiff had purchased the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Therefore, Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) (OSR) prima facie establishes the ownership and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the suit property.
14.At this stage, it is imperative to examine the defence put forth by the defendant. The primary defence put forth by the defendant in the written statement is that the rent of the suit property was fixed as Rs. 2000/- per month instead of Rs. 20,000/- per month and the defendant has accordingly contended that the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The defendant has further contended that the suit property falls in UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:15:37 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 7 of 25 a slum area and that the present suit is barred by Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. The defendant has further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff has filed false, forged and fabricated documents.
15.In this context, it is pertinent to mention that the defendant in the written statement has not specifically answered the point of substance and the material averments raised in the plaint and the same is inexplicable. Furthermore, the defendant in the para wise reply on merits has merely stated in a general and mechanical manner that the respective paragraphs of the plaint are wrong, false, incorrect and specifically denied. However, such a denial does not constitute a specific denial as contemplated under Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 of CPC.
16.It is a settled law that denial has to be specific and a vague and evasive denial in the written statement is no denial and is of no consequence. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC which provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability.
17.Therefore, a non-specific and an evasive denial in written statement may be taken as an admission of facts. In this context, it is imperative to refer to the decision of the apex court in Badat and Co vs. East India Trading Co AIR 1964 SC 538 wherein it was held as follows:
The written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. If his denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.
18.In view of the aforesaid, it is amply clear that a specific denial must deal expressly with each material allegation of fact which the defendant does not UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:15:47 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 8 of 25 admit and in the absence of such specific denial, the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted. Evidently, the defendant in the written statement has not answered the point of substance and the material averments raised in the plaint. In other words, the defendant in the written statement has not specifically denied the material averments made in the plaint and rather the defendant has merely made a vague, evasive and a mechanical denial and the same tantamounts to deemed admission of the facts pleaded in the plaint in terms of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC. The said deemed admission by the defendant in the written statement as discussed above has thereby fortified the plaintiff's case and has resultantly eroded the credibility of the entire defence put forth by the defendant.
19. Be that as it may, the defendant in the written statement has also admitted that she was inducted as a tenanted qua the tenanted premises by the plaintiff as evident from the fact that the defendant has averred in the written statement that she has always been paying the rent to the plaintiff and that she has also paid the upto date rent to the plaintiff. In other words, the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant stands established and the same is not in dispute.
20.It now becomes imperative to examine the testimony of DW-1 being the defendant. In her cross examination, the defendant i.e. DW-1 admitted that the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) bears her signatures on all the pages and further admitted that she along with the plaintiff had appeared before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the said rent agreement. Therefore, DW-1 i.e. the defendant in her cross examination has herself admitted that she had signed and executed the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) which was also duly registered. DW-1 in her cross examination further admitted that the tenanted premises were given on rent for a period of two years. Therefore, UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:15:57 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 9 of 25 the execution and registration of the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) is not in dispute which thereby gives credence to the plaintiff's case.
21.Therefore, the defendant in her cross examination has categorically admitted her signatures on the rent agreement in question i.e. Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) as well as the fact that the said agreement was duly registered. The said admission has entirely weakened the defence put forth by the defendant and it is thus evident that the plea of the defendant alleging that the said agreement is forged and fabricated is nothing but a sham, bogus and a frivolous defence. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that it is a well settled law that a registered document carries with it a prima facie presumption of regularity and genuineness and therefore when a registered document is challenged, the onus lies on the person who challenges it to rebut the said presumption by leading cogent evidence. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the apex court in Prem Singh vs. Birbal AIR 2006 SC 3608 wherein it has been held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed and that a registered document is prima facie valid in law.
22.It is pertinent to mention that the registered rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) executed between the plaintiff and the defendant qua the tenanted premises specifically mentions that the monthly rate of rent of the tenanted premises was fixed as Rs. 20,000/- for a period of one year i.e. from 26.04.2019 to 25.04.2020 and thereafter the rent was to be increased to Rs. 22,000/- i.e. from 26.04.2020 to 25.04.2021. However, the defendant in the written statement has merely made a bald and vague assertion that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises was fixed as Rs. 2000/- without leading any cogent evidence in support of the said averment. Furthermore, the defendant has not led any evidence whatsoever to show that the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) does not reflect the true intention of the parties or UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:16:08 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 10 of 25 that it was forged and fabricated or that it was executed under any vitiating circumstances. Therefore, the defendant has merely made bald and vague assertions unsubstantiated by any cogent and credible evidence and resultantly the entire defence put forth by the defendant is baseless, untenable and is devoid of any merits.
23.Even otherwise, it is a well settled law that when the terms of a contract have been reduced into writing, no oral evidence can be adduced to contradict, vary, add or subtract from the terms of such written document. It is pertinent to mention that Section 91 and Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 embody the best evidence rule and place a clear bar on adducing oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms of a written contract, grant or other disposition of property as a written document itself is the best evidence of its contents. Therefore, once the registered rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) whose due execution and registration stands proved itself mentions the rate of rent of the tenanted premises as Rs. 20,000/- per month, no oral evidence can be adduced by the defendant to prove that the rate of rent was different from what is expressly stated in the said agreement. As already discussed, the defendant has miserably failed to show that the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) was forged or fabricated or that it was executed under any vitiating circumstances such as fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence and the defendant has merely made bald averments without any cogent evidence. Therefore, the defendant's plea that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 2000 per month is contrary to the written and registered rent agreement and accordingly the said assertion being the fulcrum of the defence put forth by the defendant is wholly untenable, misconceived and bereft of merits.
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:16:21 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 11 of 25
24.Moving further, the defendant in her cross examination has also admitted that the whatsapp chat Ex. PW-1/4 were exchanged between her and the son of the plaintiff and has further admitted that she has not paid the rent of Rs. 80,000/- as mentioned in the said whatsapp chat Ex. PW-1/4. The aforesaid admission by the defendant has further undermined the credibility of her defence and has resultantly fortified and strengthened the plaintiff's case as explained hereunder. Perusal of the document Ex. PW-1/4 placed on record by the plaintiff shows that it is a screenshot of a whatsapp communication dated 11.11.2019 in which it is clearly revealed that the sender of the message (i.e. the son of the plaintiff as admitted by the defendant in her cross examination) has written to the defendant that a total amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards the rent was pending from July to October i.e. the rent of 4 months computed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month was pending to be paid. It is pertinent to mention that the recipient of the said message, who is admittedly the defendant had replied to the said message stating that she would pay the complete rent by 22nd November and further assured the sender of the whatsapp message i.e. the son of the plaintiff that she would also vacate the premises. The said categorical admission on the part of the defendant clearly establishes that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 20,000/- per month and not Rs. 2000/- as falsely alleged by the defendant. Furthermore, the whatsapp chat Ex. PW-1/4 also establishes that the defendant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 80,000/- for the period from July to October 2019.
25.Therefore, the whatsapp communication Ex. PW-1/4 coupled with the defendant's own admission completely demolishes and discredits the defendant's defence that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 2000/- per month and it consequently reinforces the plaintiff's case that the agreed rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 20,000/- per month as mentioned in the registered rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR). Therefore, the defence UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:16:33 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 12 of 25 put forth by the defendant is not only false, baseless and wholly untenable but the same also stands contradicted by her own admission and also the documentary evidence on record and the same has completely eroded the credibility of the entire defence put forth by the defendant.
26.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the defence put forth by the defendant that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.2000/- per month is nothing but a vexatious, frivolous and a sham defence. Furthermore, the defendant has miserably failed to lead any cogent evidence to dispute the validity or genuineness of the said registered rent agreement and rather the defendant has merely made bald and vague assertions unsubstantiated by any cogent and credible evidence.
27.Therefore, it emerges that the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties has been clearly established in the present case and the defendant has also admitted the execution and registration of the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR). Furthermore, it has been clearly established that the rent of the tenanted premises was fixed as Rs.20,000/- per month for one year i.e. from 26.04.2019 to 25.04.2019 as mentioned in the said rent agreement. Therefore, it is concluded that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 20,000 per month which is clearly above the ceiling prescribed under Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 meaning thereby that the said tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and accordingly the defendant is not entitled to claim any protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
28.Moving further, it is a well settled law that in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the plaintiff has to establish the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:16:43 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 13 of 25 either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the apex court in Payal Vision Ltd. vs. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties and the termination of the tenancy qua the suit property by leading clear and cogent evidence.
29.As already discussed, the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant stands established in the present case and the same is not in dispute. Furthermore, it is amply clear that the said tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and it is now only necessary to examine as to whether the tenancy of the defendant was duly terminated in accordance with law. In other words, once the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved and since the tenancy is not protected by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the only requirement for the plaintiff to be entitled to the recovery of possession of the tenanted premises was to show that the tenancy was duly terminated in accordance with law. Therefore, it is necessary to examine as to whether the tenancy of the defendant was validly terminated by the plaintiff so as to entitle the plaintiff to the relief of recovery of possession of the tenanted premises.
30.The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that since the defendant had stopped paying rent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had terminated the tenancy of the defendant in accordance with clause 11 of the rent agreement by sending legal notice dated 21.11.2019 and legal notice 27.11.2019 which was duly served upon the defendant on 30.11.2019. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has placed on record the legal notice dated 21.11.2019 along with its postal receipt dated 27.11.2019 and tracking report Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) to contend UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:16:52 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 14 of 25 that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated vide said legal notice. Perusal of the legal notice Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) shows that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by the plaintiff with effect from 21.11.2019 and vide said notice, the defendant was called upon to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within one month i.e. on or before 21.12.2019 and was also called upon to pay the arears of rent along with electricity bill, water bill and other expenses qua the suit property to the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the postal receipt as to the dispatch of the legal notice along with its tracking report which forms a part of Ex. PW- 1/5 (colly) is also on record and as per the tracking report, the said notice was delivered on 30.11.2019. Evidently the legal notice Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) was duly served upon the defendant and the same was sent on the correct address of the defendant. Therefore, it is concluded that tenancy of the defendant stood terminated vide legal notice Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) and as such on termination of the tenancy, the possession of the defendant had become unauthorised and the defendant had no right to occupy the tenanted premises.
31.Even otherwise, in view of the legal position settled by the apex court in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd vs. Santokh Singh AIR 2008 SC 673, it is no longer res integra that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant which means that the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of a suit for eviction. In the present case, the summons of the suit was duly served on the defendant. Therefore, the tenancy of the defendant has otherwise also been duly terminated even if the notice of termination is to be ignored. Therefore, it is concluded that the plaintiff has proved the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties and also the termination of the tenancy and consequently all the requisite legal conditions for the relief of possession of the tenanted premises are satisfied in UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:17:02 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 15 of 25 the present case and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit property from the defendant.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- along with damages in his favour and against the defendant? OPP
33.The onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed for recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the defendant on account of arrears of rent of the suit property. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff in paragraph no. 7 of the plaint has specifically averred that the defendant did not pay any rent from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019. Therefore the period for which the arrears of rent have been claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant actually covers a period of six months even though the plaintiff in the said paragraph of the plaint has mentioned the said period as four months. In the considered view of this court, the said anomaly is clearly a typographical or a clerical error as the intention of the plaintiff to claim arrears of rent from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019 which indeed covers a period of six months is unmistakable from the pleadings of the plaint when read in entirety. Furthermore, the substance of the pleadings must prevail over a minor numerical or a typographical mistake in its expression. Accordingly, the clear and unambiguous reference in the plaint regarding the period of default as to payment of rent to be from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019 makes it evident that the defendant had allegedly not paid the arrears of rent for the said period of six months and the mention of the period of four months in paragraph no. 7 of the plaint is clearly a typographical or a clerical error which has to be discarded.
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:17:13 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 16 of 25
34.It now becomes imperative to examine as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- from the defendant as prayed for. As already discussed, it is an admitted position of fact that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Furthermore, it has been clearly established that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 20,000/- per month as stipulated in the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR). The plaintiff has contended that the defendant did not pay any rent qua the tenanted premises from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019 and accordingly the plaintiff has claimed the recovery of arrears of rent for the said period of six months amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- computed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that during her cross examination, DW-1 i.e. the defendant has admitted that the whatsapp chat dated 11.11.2019 Ex. PW-1/4 was exchanged between her and the son of the plaintiff and has further admitted that she did not pay the rent of Rs. 80,000/- to the plaintiff as mentioned in the said whatsapp chat. The said admission on part of the defendant clearly establishes that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent of four months to the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 80,000/-.
35.Moving further, the defendant i.e. DW-1 in her testimony also deposed that she does not remember when she had lastly paid the rent of the tenanted premises which thereby gives credence to the plaintiff's case. The said admission on part of the defendant as to the non payment of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 80,000/- coupled with the sheer inability of the defendant to even specify the details of the last payment of the rent by her, clearly shows that the rent qua the tenanted premises remained unpaid by the defendant not merely for four months but for the entire period from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019 as claimed by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant has miserably failed to produce any documentary or any cogent evidence to UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:17:24 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 17 of 25 demonstrate the payment of any rent whatsoever to the plaintiff which clearly establishes that the defendant remained in arrears of rent for the entire period of six months i.e. from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019. In other words, the admission on the part of the defendant as to the non payment of the arrears of rent of Rs. 80,000/- coupled with the lack of any evidence showing the payment of any rent whatsoever by the defendant for the subsequent months clearly establishes that the defendant remained in arrears for the entire period of six months. Accordingly, the plaintiff has duly proved that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 27.06.2019 to 27.12.2019 and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent for the said six months amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- computed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month.
36.In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rent/occupation charges @ Rs. 1500/- from the date of filing of suit till vacant possession in his favour and against the defendants? OPP
37.The onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the present suit has also claimed occupation charges/mesne profits @ Rs. 1500/- per day (i.e. the damages/charges for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant) from the date of filing of the suit till the handing over of the vacant possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has contended that the defendant is in illegal possession of the suit property from the date of termination of tenancy and therefore the plaintiff has claimed occupation charges @ Rs. 1500/- per day from the defendant meaning thereby that the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits from the defendant being the damages on account of unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant. It is pertinent to mention that the tenancy of the UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:17:35 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 18 of 25 defendant stood terminated through legal notice Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) sent by the plaintiff to the defendant which was duly served upon on the defendant and as such on termination of the tenancy, the defendant had no right to occupy and possess the suit property. Therefore, it is amply clear that the defendant is in illegal possession of the suit property since 21.12.2019 i.e. the date by which the defendant was called upon to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as per the legal notice Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) and the plaintiff is accordingly entitled to recover occupation charges/mesne profits for the unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant despite termination of tenancy. However, the plaintiff did not lead any cogent evidence to prove the basis for computation of the amount of occupation charges/mesne profits of Rs. 1500/- per day which amounts to Rs. 45,000/- per month and therefore the claim of occupation charges/mesne profits computed as Rs. 1500/- per day is unsubstantiated.
38.It is pertinent to mention that mesne profits or damages/charges payable for the unauthorised use and occupation of premises by a tenant is determined by the prevalent market rent being fetched by similarly situated property in the locality. However, as far as the relief of mesne profits is concerned, no witness was examined by the plaintiff and no document was filed by the plaintiff to show that the suit property can fetch a rent of Rs. 1500/- per day i.e. Rs. 45,000/- per month or that the rate of rent of similarly situated properties in the locality is Rs. 45,000/- per month.
39.Be that as it may, a tenant continuing to occupy the tenanted premises after expiry of the lease is a tenant at sufferance and is liable to pay mesne profits at market rent for unauthorised use and occupation of the premises. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the apex court in UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:17:51 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 19 of 25 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited 2022 SCC OnLine 1161. In the present case, even though the tenancy of the defendant was validly terminated vide legal notice Ex. PW-1/5 (colly), the tenancy of the defendant also stood automatically terminated by efflux of time on 26.04.2021 and as such on termination of the tenancy, the defendant had no right to occupy and possess the suit property. Furthermore, the rate of rent agreed upon between the parties is suggestive of the market rate and the said rate can be treated to be the quantum of mesne profits which the defendant is liable to pay for use of the premises each month. In the present case, the monthly rent of the suit property is stated to be Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover user and occupation charges/mesne profits from the defendant @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from 21.12.2019 till the handing over of the vacant and possession of the suit property by defendant to plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has not claimed any interest on the said occupation charges/mesne profits. However, the definition of mesne profits in Section 2(12) CPC provides that mesne profits include the interest payable thereon. Furthermore, it is a settled law that interest forms an integral part of the mesne profits and therefore once the court awards mesne profits, the interest accruing thereon has to be allowed as a necessary corollary in the computation of the mesne profits. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in JK Laksmi Cement vs. Master Avishkar Prakash 2024:DHC:9239. Therefore, even though the plaintiff has not specifically claimed any interest on the occupation charges/mesne profits, this court is empowered to award interest thereon as the same is inherent in the very concept of mesne profits under Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court is of the considered view that grant of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of occupation charges/mesne profits is reasonable, just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the defendant shall pay UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:18:02 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 20 of 25 occupation charges/mesne profits @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from 21.12.2019 till the handing over of the vacant and possession of the suit property to the plaintiff along with simple interest @ 9% per annum for the said period.
40.In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.4: Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendant? OPD
41.The onus to prove the present issue was upon the defendant. However, no evidence whatsoever was led by the defendant to substantiate as to how the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and rather the defendant has merely made bald and vague assertions unsubstantiated by any cogent and credible evidence. Admittedly, the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises by the plaintiff vide registered rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR). Furthermore, the defendant has herself admitted the execution and the registration of the said rent agreement and has also admitted that the tenanted premises were given on rent for a period of two years. As already discussed, the tenancy of the defendant has been duly terminated by the plaintiff in accordance with law but the defendant has failed to vacate and handover the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff till date despite the termination of the tenancy. Therefore, the plaintiff being the landlord of the tenanted premises has the requisite legal interest and the locus standi to institute the present suit for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from the defendant. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:18:13 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 21 of 25
Issue no.5: Whether the documents of the plaintiff are forged and fabricated? OPD
42.The onus to prove the present issue was upon the defendant. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant in her written statement has taken a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has filed false, illegal, forged and fabricated documents but the said averment in the written statement is entirely vague and non specific. However, no evidence whatsoever was lead by the defendant to prove that the plaintiff has filed any forged and fabricated documents as alleged by the defendant and rather the defendant has merely made bald and vague assertions unsubstantiated by any cogent and credible evidence. As already discussed, the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) placed on record by the plaintiff which forms the foundation of the plaintiff's case is a registered document and a registered document carries with it a prima facie presumption of regularity and genuineness. Therefore, whenever a registered document is challenged, the onus lies on the person who challenges it to rebut the said presumption by leading cogent evidence. However, the defendant has not produced any cogent and credible evidence whatsoever to show that the said rent agreement or any of the documents filed by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated and on the contrary, the defendant in her cross examination has herself admitted the execution and the registration of the said rent agreement which completely falsifies and discredits the said defence raised by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant's conduct in continuing to occupy the tenanted premises under the same rent agreement and deriving benefits therefrom further negates her plea of forgery. Furthermore, the defendant in her cross examination has also admitted that the whatsapp chat Ex. PW-1/4 placed on record by the plaintiff which further undermines the credibility of the defence raised by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has miserably failed to prove that the documents of the plaintiff are forged and fabricated UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:18:25 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 22 of 25 and accordingly the said plea taken by the defendant is wholly untenable and devoid of any merits. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.6: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Slum Improvement and Clearance Act and Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD
43.The onus to prove the present issue was upon the defendant. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant in the written statement has taken a preliminary objection that the rent of the suit property was Rs. 2000/- per month and has accordingly contended that the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. However, in view of the findings on issue no.1, it is amply clear that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 20,000 per month as mentioned in the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR) and accordingly the said rent is clearly above the ceiling prescribed under Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Consequently, the defence put forth by the defendant that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.2000/- per month is nothing but a vexatious and frivolous defence and the same is devoid of any merits. Therefore, it is concluded that the tenancy of the defendant is not protected under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and accordingly the present suit is not barred by the said Act.
44.Furthermore, the defendant has also averred in the written statement that the present suit is barred by Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. However, the defendant has not led any evidence whatsoever to establish that the suit property falls within a notified slum area under the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act and rather the defendant has merely made bald and vague assertions unsubstantiated by any cogent and credible evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, the mere plea in the written statement that the suit property falls in a slum area or that the present UMANG Digitally signed by UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:18:38 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 23 of 25 suit is barred under the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act is baseless and is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
45.Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that PW-1 being the plaintiff withstood the rigours of cross examination and no material contradiction, variation, improvement or omission could be elicited by the defendant. Therefore, even during the cross examination of PW-1, the defendant could not discredit the case of the plaintiff. Per contra, the version put forth by the defendant remained unsubstantiated throughout the entire trial and resultantly the entire defence put forth by the defendant is baseless and is devoid of any merits.
46.In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings on the above issues, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has duly discharged its burden of proof and successfully proved its case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities and consequently the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the defendant along with the arrears of rent and occupation charges/mesne profits.
47.Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:
a) A decree of recovery of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is hereby directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no.
B-1216, First Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 to the plaintiff.
b) The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the plaintiff towards the arrears of rent.
UMANG Digitally signed by
UMANG JOSHI
JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27
17:18:51 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 24 of 25
c) The defendant shall pay occupation charges/mesne profits @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from 21.12.2019 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff along with simple interest @ 9% per annum for the said period.
d) Cost of the suit shall be paid by defendant to the plaintiff as per rules.
48.The plaintiff shall file deficient court fee, if any. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
49.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in Open Court on this 27th day of October 2025 This Judgment consists of 25 signed pages. Digitally signed by UMANG UMANG JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.10.27 17:19:12 +05'30' (UMANG JOSHI) Principal Magistrate, JJB-V, Family Court Complex, East District 27.10.2025 The then Civil Judge-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Civil Suit no. 208/2020 Page no. 25 of 25