Delhi District Court
Smt Pushpa Gupta vs Smt Anu Bhayana on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF A.S.J.(SFTC)
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLET-01-000902-2026
(Old CNR No. DLWT01-008181-2023)
Civil DJ No.85/2026
(Old Civil DJ No. 864/2023)
Ms. Pushpa Gupta
W/o Mr. R.S. Gupta,
R/o GH-14/147, MIG Flats,
Paschim Vihar
New Delhi - 110087 ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Ms. Anu Bhayana,
S/o Mr. Varun Bhayana,
R/o Flat No.142, First Floor,
Pocket GH-14, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110087 ....Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
AND FOR ARREARS OF RENT/ MESNE
PROFITS.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 10.10.2023
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.01.2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13.02.2026
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 1 of 28
Civil DJ No. 85/2026
Appearances:
Mr. Vikas Bhatia, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit, against the Defendant, for recovery of possession of suit property and for arrears of rent/mesne profits.
2. The facts stated in the Plaint:
The facts, as set out in the plaint, are summed up in brief in the paras hereinbelow:
i. The Plaintiff is the owner of suit property, i.e., DDA built up MIG Flat No. 142, First Floor, Pocket GH-14, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087. The aforesaid flat is let out to the Defendant at the monthly rent of Rs.22,000/-, w.e.f. 01.08.2022 till 31.05.2024.
ii. The rent was agreed to be increased at the rate of 10% after the period of 11 months. The rent agreement dated 25.07.2022 was registered with the office of concerned Sub-Registrar.
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 2 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 iii. After 11 months, the Defendant was liable to make payment of Rs.24,200/-, however, the Defendant did not pay the enhanced rent in terms of clause 19 of the rent agreement and paid rent at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per month. The Defendant had not paid the rent since July, 2023.
iv. The Defendant violated the terms of the tenancy and further the Plaintiff required the suit property for his own as well as his family's needs.
v. The Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 07.08.2023 giving her 30 days period to vacate the suit property. The aforesaid notice was duly served upon the Defendant and the Defendant sent a frivolous reply to the notice instead of complying with the same and therefore, the Plaintiff filed the present suit.
3. Service of the Defendant and the Written Statement:
3.1. The Defendant was duly and entered appearance on 22.01.2024. The Defendant has filed the written statement and has admitted the landlord tenant relationship, the rate of rent and the service of the notice for termination of tenancy.
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 3 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 It is stated in written statement that the Plaintiff has initiated illegal and unauthorized construction and encroached upon the public road for extending the area of the flat and the Defendant objected to the same. It is stated in written statement that the Plaintiff caused harassment of the Defendant by the raising the aforesaid illegal construction. It is stated that the Defendant paid the rent till November, 2023. It is stated that the Defendant has not violated any condition of the rent agreement. No replication is directed by the Court to be filed nor did the Plaintiff seek any opportunity to file any replication.
4. The suit was filed for the prayers of possession and recovery of arrears of rent/mesne profits. The Plaintiff, after filing of the written statement, has filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The aforesaid application was allowed on 27.08.2024 and the suit was decreed for prayer of possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The relevant part of the Order dated 27.08.2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the pre conditions for ejectment of tenant, under the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 in "Surinder J. Sud vs Shri R.R. Bhandari: RSA No. 106/2006: ILR (2008) Supp 4 Delhi 31", and the relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 4 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 "14. It is settled law that in Delhi, in a suit for ejectment, only 3 issues arise for consideration:
(a) Whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties?
(b) Whether the tenancy has expired by efflux of time or stands determined by a valid notice to quit or the tenant has otherwise forfeited the right under the lease agreement? and
(c) Since Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 prohibits ejectment of a tenant paying rent up to Rs.
3,500/- per month save and except by an order passed by a Rent Controller on the grounds specified under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, whether the rent of the leased premises is more than Rs.3,500/- per month."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have recently affirmed the aforementioned pre-conditions in "Ashok Kumar Bagga vs Rajvinder Kaur:
AIRONline2021Delhi 724".
7. The Defendant in the present case does not dispute the landlord-tenant relationship or the factum of execution of the registered rent agreement dated 25.07.2022. The Defendant has admitted para no. 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint and thus admitted that she was inducted as a tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.22,000/- initially, in terms of registered rent agreement dated 25.07.2022. The Defendant has also admitted that the Plaintiff has issued a 30 days notice dated 07.08.2023 for eviction and the Defendant has replied to the same.
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 5 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026
8. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff has maliciously initiated the action for eviction against the Defendant, as the Plaintiff has been carrying out unauthorized construction in the suit property, which was objected by the Defendant. It is further submitted that the notice dated 07.08.2023 is not a valid one. The notice dated 07.08.2023 is short and cryptic and it states that the Defendant is being given 30 days notice, in terms of the rent agreement, to vacate the premises and surrender the possession on or before 07.09.2023.
9. Once the Defendant admits the registered rent agreement dated 25.07.2022, the rights of the parties have to be understood in view of the same. In terms of the aforesaid rent agreement, the tenancy commenced from 01.08.2022, with a lock-in period of initial 6 months. Further, in terms of clause 9, 11 and 12 of the rent agreement, the parties are entitled to terminate the tenancy. The aforesaid clauses are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"9. That the Second Party can vacate the premises after giving one month's notice in writing to the First Party, similarly the First Party shall give one month's notice in writing to terminate the agreement during the term of tenancy."
"11. That in case of default or non-payment of rent for two consecutive months, the agreement will automatically stand terminated and the Second Party shall be under obligation to vacate the premises and shall immediately handover vacant possession to the First Party."
"12. That in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions enumerated above, the First Party shall have the right to terminate the Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 6 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 tenancy and resume the possession of the premises at that time."
10. The perusal of rent agreement dated 25.07.2022 would show that the parties are entitled to terminate the tenancy in terms of clause 9, independently of the clause 11 and 12 of the rent agreement. In terms of clause 9, the tenancy can be terminated by either of the parties, after expiry of lock-in period of 6 months, by serving a one month's notice on the other. The lock in period has expired long ago. The Plaintiff has served a one month's notice upon the Defendant, which has not only been duly received but also replied to. This Court does not find any infirmity with the notice dated 07.08.2023 and the Plaintiff has validly terminated the tenancy, in terms of clause 9 of the rent agreement dated 25.07.2022.
11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Nopany Investments (P)Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) : 2008 (2) SCC 728", has held that the tenancy would stand terminated under general law on filing of a suit for eviction. The aforesaid proposition have been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in, "M/S. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs M/S. Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr.: RFA No.179/2011 (25 March, 2011)", to hold that even assuming the notice terminating the tenancy was not served upon the landlord, the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of the suit for eviction. The Defendant has duly been served with the summons of the present suit. Therefore, the tenancy has duly been terminated.
12. The contentions of the unauthorized construction would not afford any legal defence to the Defendant for the prayer of possession. The Defendant is at liberty to explore the legal remedies for alleged acts of unauthorized construction, if otherwise available to her, however the Defendant is not entitled to retain the possession of the suit property on the ground of aforesaid contentions alone, when the tenancy has Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 7 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 been validly terminated.
13. Thus, all the requisite legal conditions for the prayer of possession, as prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Surinder J. Sood (supra) and Ashok Kumar Bagga(supra), are satisfied in the present case and no triable issues arises, in so far as the prayer of possession is concerned.
14. For reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed and the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for the possession of suit property, i.e., DDA built up MIG Flat No. 142, First Floor, Pocket GH- 14, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110087. The decree sheet be drawn up accordingly."
Thereafter the suit was adjudicated only for the prayer of recovery of arrears of rent/mesne profits.
5. Issues:
5.1 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following Issue was framed on 01.02.2023:
i. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent/mesne profits, if yes, for what amount and for which period? OPP.
ii. Relief.
6. The Plaintiff's Evidence:
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 8 of 28
Civil DJ No. 85/2026
6.1. The Plaintiff has led her evidence and has examined herself as the sole witness in support of her case. The Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 and has reiterated the contentions of the plaint in her examination-in-chief. The Plaintiff has exhibited and relied upon the rent agreement dated 25.07.2022, i.e., Exhibit PW-1/1, in her examination-in-
chief. The PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the Defendant despite opportunity being given and right of the Defendant to cross-examine the PW-1 was closed on 30.05.2025. The Plaintiff closed her evidence after examination of the PW-1.
7. The Defendant's Evidence:
7.1. The Defendant did not lead any evidence despite opportunities being granted and right of the Defendant to lead evidence was closed on 04.11.2025 and thereafter the matter was posted for final arguments.
8. Submissions.
8.1. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the Defendant did not dispute the landlord-tenant relationship, rate of rent, execution of the rent agreement, i.e., Exhibit PW-1/1 as well as the due service of notice for termination. It is submitted that the Defendant has further admitted non- payment of rent after November, 2023 and the factum of Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 9 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 payment of rent from August to November, 2023 has to be established in the affirmative by the Defendan, which the Defendant failed to prove. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent at enhanced rate from 01.08.2023 till the vacation of the property in question. It is stated that the Defendant has handed over the possession in Court on 07.03.2025, in proceeding for execution of decree for possession, i.e., Ex. No. 264 of 2024. It is stated that the Defendant is liable to make payment of the rent/mesne profits @ Rs.24,200 per month from 01.08.2023 to 07.03.2025. No arguments have been addressed on behalf of the Defendant despite opportunities being granted.
9. Conclusions on Issues and reasons for such conclusions:
9. Issue No.1: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent/mesne profits, if yes, for what amount and for which period?
OPP.
9.1. The onus to prove the Issue No.1 is upon the Plaintiff. It is case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is owner of the suit property and the same was let out to the Defendant in terms of registered rent agreement dated 25.07.2022 for a period of 22 months. It is stated that the agreed rate of monthly rent was Rs.22,000/- and the same was agreed to increased by Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 10 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 10% after initial 11 months. It is stated that the Defendant only paid Rs.22,000/- and did not make payment of the enhanced rent after initial 11 months and thereafter the Defendant stopped making payment of rent after June, 2023 and she is liable to make payment at enhanced rate in terms of the rent agreement. It is stated that the Plaintiff has served a legal notice for termination of the tenancy, however the Defendant has sent a frivolous reply to the same, instead of making payment of outstanding dues.
9.2. The Defendant in the written statement did not dispute the execution of registered rent agreement dated 25.07.2022 as well as the landlord-tenant relationship, rate of rent or service of legal notice for termination of tenancy, however it is stated that the Defendant has paid rent till November, 2023. It is stated that the Defendant paid rent for August, 2023 on 08.08.2023 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had asked for three months advance rent as she was in need of money for construction of the balconies and trusting the assurances of the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid Rs.66,000/- towards the advance rent of September, October and November, 2023 on 09.08.2023. It is stated that the Plaintiff has raised unauthorized construction in the suit property, with a view to encroach upon the public land and the aforesaid construction has resulted in harassment of the Defendant and her family and therefore, the Defendant was not liable to make payment of any rent to the Plaintiff.
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 11 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 9.3. The Plaintiff has led evidence and appeared as the PW-1.
The Plaintiff has reiterated the averments of the plaint in the examination in chief. The Plaintiff has exhibited the original rent agreement dated 25.07.2022 as PW-1/1. The aforesaid rent agreement is stated to be registered with the concerned Sub-registrar-IIA, Sub-Division Punjabi Bagh, Delhi vide Registration No.5184, Book No.1, Vol. No. 4603 on pages 117 to 121 on 26.07.2022. The Defendant has not denied the execution and registration of the Exhibit PW-1/1. The Exhibit PW-1/1 further bears the details of registration. Thus, the PW-1/1 as well as its contents have been proved on record. The clause 19 of the Exhibit PW-1/1 provides that rent would be increased by 10% after expiry of period of initial 11 months under the rent agreement. Therefore, the applicable agreed rate of rent from August, 2023 onwards is Rs.24,200/-.
9.4. Now the question to be determined is period of liability. The Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant has paid the rent since July, 2023, whereas the Defendant has stated that the rent was paid up-to November, 2023. The Plaintiff has stated in her examination in chief that the Defendant did not make payment of any rent since July, 2023 and the aforesaid statement/evidence has not been challenged by any cross- examination and therefore, the contentions of rent being due since July, 2023 are deemed to admitted by the Defendant.
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 12 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 9.5. The Defendant has stated in the written statement that she had paid rent till November, 2023. It is stated that the Defendant paid rent for August, 2023 on 08.08.2023 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had asked for three months advance rent as she was in need of money for construction of the balconies and trusting the assurances of the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid Rs.66,000/- towards the advance rent of September, October and November, 2023 on 09.08.2023. The burden of proof about the rent being paid till November, 2023 was upon the Defendant, in terms of Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as she would fail if no evidence were given by either side. The mode or manner of aforesaid payment has not been spelled out in the pleadings nor any document is filed to support or corroborate the contentions of payment. The Defendant has also not affirmed the the contentions of the aforesaid payment by entering the witness box and therefore, it has been proved on record that the Defendant has paid the rent only till July, 2023 and no rent has been paid since July, 2023.
9.6. The Defendant has further stated in the written statement that the Plaintiff has raised unauthorized construction in the suit property and the same has caused harassment of the Defendant and her family members and therefore, the Defendant is not liable to make payment of rent after November, 2023. Firstly, the Defendant has not proved the Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 13 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 contentions of unauthorized construction in the affirmative and secondly, even if the contentions of unauthorized construction and inconvenience occurred to the Defendant are assumed to be true, the same would not take away the liability to make payment of the rent for occupation of the suit property. It is not case of the Defendant that she was deprived of use of the property or her right to use the same was restricted for any particular period on account of such construction. The Defendant cannot avoid the payment of rent, as she was not deprived of the use of the suit property by the acts of construction, if any. Therefore, the Defendant has to make payment of the aforesaid rent since July, 2023 till the time, when the possession was handed over by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
9.7. There is further dispute between the parties as to date of handing over of possession of the suit property. The Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant has vacated the suit property only on 07.03.2025, pursuant to the execution proceeding, i.e., Ex No. 264/2024, initiated for execution of the decree for possession dated 27.08.2024. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that factum of possession being handed over only on 07.03.2025 is evident from the Order dated 23.12.2024 and the Order 07.03.2025, passed in the Ex No. 264/2024. The suit was decreed for prayer of possession on 27.08.2024 and the Plaintiff has filed the execution petition No. 264/2024. The Defendant has appeared in the Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 14 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 aforesaid case and stated on 23.12.2024 that she would vacate the suit property by 22.01.2025. The Order dated 23.12.2024 passed in Ex. No. 264/2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
".......Ld. Counsel for the JD submits that the JD is willing to hand over the possession of the premises to the DH. The JD, present in person, has undertaken that she shall vacate the suit property, i.e., DDA built up MIG Flat No. 142, First Floor, Pocket GH-14, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110087 by 22.01.2025 and hand over the possession of the same to the DH. Separate statement of the JD has been recorded to that effect. List the matter for report of compliance on 29.01.2025."
9.8. Subsequently, it is averred by the Defendant in the aforesaid execution proceedings that she had already vacated and handed over the key of the suit property on 17.01.2025, however, the Plaintiff disputed the aforesaid contention. The Order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Ex No. 264 of 2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"......The JD is present and has filed an affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that the JD has already vacated the suit property, i.e., DDA built up MIG Flat No. 142, First Floor, Pocket GH-14, Paschim Vihar, Delhi- 110087 on 17.01.2025. Ld. Counsel for the JD has submitted that the JD has handed over the keys of the suit property in the Police Station to the DH on 17.01.2025, as a dispute was raised by the DH at the time of the vacation of the suit property. Ld. Counsel for the DH submits that the dispute has in fact been raised by the JD, however the keys have not been handed over.
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 15 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 After discussion with the Court, Ld. Counsels as well as parties are agreeable that the DH can break open the locks of the suit property and the question, whether the keys were handed over on 17.01.2025, will be adjudicated by the parties in the scope of the civil suit pending between them. The statement of the JD has also been recorded. It is submitted by the Counsels that the present execution petition be disposed off, in view of the submissions, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties about the date of handing over of the premises. It is directed that the DH can break open the lock of the premises in question and take the possession. The present execution petition is disposed off as satisfied, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties with regard to the date of handing over of the possession. The files be consigned to record room after due compliance."
9.9. In terms of the above referred order dated 23.12.2025, the aspect as to whether the possession of the suit property was given on 17.01.2025 or on 07.03.2025 was left open to be decided in the present suit. The Plaintiff has stated in para 7 of her examination in chief that she had received the possession of the suit property only on 07.03.2025. The Defendant has neither cross-examined the Plaintiff on the aforesaid aspect nor has led any evidence in the affirmative about the same. The burden of proof of the fact of key being handed over to DH in Police station was upon the Defendant in terms of Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the Defendant would fail if no evidence were given by either side. The Defendant has not proved the aforesaid contentions by evidence and therefore, it has to be concluded that the possession of the suit property was received by the Plaintiff Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 16 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 only on 07.03.2025.
9.10. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to make payment of the rent from 01.07.2023 till the date of institution of the suit and further is entitled to mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit till 07.03.2025, when the possession was received by the Plaintiff. The computation of the aforesaid due rent/mesne profits, as stated in para 8 of the examination in chief of the PW-1 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
01.07.2023 Rs.22,000/-
01.08.2023 Rs.24,200/-
01.09.2023 to 01.12.2024 Rs.24,200/- 01.01.2025 to 01.03.2025 Rs.72,600/- 01.03.2025 to 07.03.2025 Rs.5,646/-
-----------------------
Total Rs.4,87,446
-----------------------
Therefore, the Defendant is liable to make payment of an amount of Rs.4,87,446 towards the arrears of rent and mesne profits with regard to possession of the suit property from 01.07.2023 till 07.03.2025.
9.11. The Plaintiff has prayed for the arrears of rent and mesne profits being due till the date of institution of the suit and Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 17 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 appropriately valued the same for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction and has also paid the requisite Court fees on the same. However there is no specific prayer for the mesne profits after date of institution of the suit. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff could only have valued and claimed the arrears of rent/mesne profits till date of institution of the suit and the entitlement for mesne profits subsequent to the institution of the suit is not dependent upon a specific prayer and is consequential to a discretionary enquiry conducted under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been conducted in terms of the Issue framed in the suit and the Plaintiff has proved the due amount of aforesaid mesne profits alongwith the period of entitlement in the evidence. Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"12. Decree for Possession and Mesne Profits.
(1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree:
(a) for the possession of the property;
(b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent; (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to mesne profits;
(c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until:
(i) the delivery of possession to the decree-
holder,
(ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 18 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 holder through the Court, or
(iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs.
(2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry."
9.12. It has been held by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Gopalakrishna Pillai and Ors. Vs. Meenakshi Ayal and Ors.: AIR1967SC 155" that in a suit for possession and past arrears of rent, if the future mesne profits are not specifically claimed, the Court has discretionary powers under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to conduct an enquiry and award the mesne profits, even in absence of a specific prayer for the same. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Full Bench are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"7. In the plaint, there was no specific prayer for a decree for mesne profits subsequent to the institution of the suit. Counsel for the appellants argued that in the absence of such a specific prayer, the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for such mesne profits. We are unable to accept this contention. Order 20, r. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits" the Court may pass a decree for the possession of the property and directing an inquiry as to the rent or mesne profits for a period prior to the institution of the suit and as to the subsequent mesne profits. The question is whether the provisions of O. 20, r. 12 apply to the present suit. We find that Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 19 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 the plaintiffs distinctly pleaded in paragraph 9 of the plaint that they were entitled to call upon the defendants to account for mesne profits since the death of Chinnayal in respect of the suit properties. For the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees, they valued their claim for possession and mesne profits for three years prior to the date of the suit and paid court-fee thereon. In the prayer portion of the plaint, they claimed recovery of possession, an account of mesne profits for three years prior to the date of the suit, costs and such other relief as may seem fit and proper to the Court in the circumstances of the case. On a reading of the plaint, we are satisfied that the suit was for recovery of possession of immovable property and for mesne profits. The provisions of O. 20, r. 12 were, therefore, attracted to the suit and the Court had power to pass a decree in the suit for both past and future mesne profits.
8. Order 20, r. 12 enables the Court to pass a decree for both past and future mesne profits but there are important distinctions in the procedure for the enforcement of the two claims. With regard to past mesne profits, a plaintiff has an existing cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit. In view of O. 7, Rules 1 and 2 and O. 7, r. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and s. 7(1) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff must plead this cause of action, specifically claim a decree for the past mesne profits, value the claim approximately and pay court fees thereon. With regard to future mesne profits, the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit, and it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action or to value it or to pay court-fees thereon at the time of the institution of the suit. Moreover, he can obtain relief in respect of this future cause of action only in a suit to which the provisions of O. 20, r. 12 apply. But in a suit to which the provisions of O. 20, r. 12 apply, the Court has a discretionary power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into the future mesne profits, and the Court Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 20 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 may grant this general relief, though it is not specifically asked for in the plaint, see Basavayya v. Guruvayya I.L.R. 1952 Mad. 173 . In Fakharuddin Mahomed Ahsan, v. Official Trustee of Bengal I.L.R. (8181) Cal. 178 , Sir R.P. Collier observed :
"The plaint has been already read in the first case and their Lordships are of opinion that it is at all events open to the construction that the plaintiff intended to claim wasilat up to the time of delivery of possession, although, for the purpose of valuation only, so much was valued as was then due; but be that as it may, they are of opinion that, under s. 196 of Act VII of 1859, it was in the power of the Court, if it thought fit, to make a decree which should give the plaintiff wasilat up to the date of obtaining possession."
9. Section 196 of Act VIII of 1859 empowered the Court in a suit for land or other property paying rent to pass a decree for mesne profits from the date of the suit until the date of delivery of possession to the decree-holder. The observations of the Privy Council suggest that in a suit to which s. 196 of Act VII of 1859 applied, the Court had jurisdiction to pass a decree for mesne profits though there was no specific claim in the plaint for future mesne profits. The Court has the like power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into future mesne profits in a suit to which the provisions of O. 20, r. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply.
10. In support of his contention that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for future mesne profits in the absence of a specific prayer for the same, counsel for the appellants relied upon the following passage in Mohd. Yamin and others v. Vakil Ahmed and others MANU/SC/0080/1952: [1952]1SCR1133.
"It was however pointed out by Shri S. P. Sinha that the High Court erred in awarding to the plaintiffs Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 21 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 mesne profits even though there was no demand for the same in the plaint. The learned Solicitor-General appearing for the plaintiffs conceded that there was no demand for mesne profits as such but urged that the claim for mesne profits would be included within the expression 'awarding possession and occupation of the property aforesaid together with all the rights appertaining thereto'. We are afraid that the claim for mesne profits cannot be included within this expression and the High Court was in error in awarding to the plaintiffs mesne profits though they had not been claimed in the plaint. The provision in regard to the mesne profits will therefore have to be deleted from the decree."
11. In our opinion, this passage does not support counsel's contention. This Court made those observations in a case where the plaint claimed only declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable properties and made no demand or claim for either past or future mesne profits or rent. It may be that in these circumstances, the suit was not one "for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits", and the Court could not pass a decree for future mesne profits under O.20, r. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But where, as in this case, the suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for past mesne profits, the Court has ample power to pass a decree directing an enquiry as to future mesne profits, though there is no specific prayer for the same in the plaint. In the aforesaid case, this Court did not lay down a contrary proposition, and this was pointed out by Subba Rao, C.J. in Atchamma v. Rami Reddy I.L.R. [1957] AP 52.
12. We are, therefore, satisfied that in this case the High Court had discretionary power to pass the decree for future mesne profits. It is not contended that the High Court exercised its discretion improperly or Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 22 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 erroneously. We see no reason to interfere with the decree passed by the High Court."
The aforesaid proposition was followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in "UCO Bank, Formarally United Commercial Bank, Kolkatta and Ors. Vs. Asaram Mohanlal Samdani and Ors.: 2016(4)ABR114" and it was reiterated that an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be conducted even if there was no specific prayer in the plaint, once the suit is decreed for the prayer of possession. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinebelow:
"7. In spite of valid termination of tenancy, the appellant-UCO Bank remained in occupation of the premises and the trial court, in consonance with the prayers made in the suit, directed to hold an inquiry under Order 20, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to determine the rate and quantum of mesne profits to be recovered from the appellant UCO Bank. I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-UCO Bank that the respondents-original plaintiffs did not pray for such an inquiry for the mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in absence of a specific prayer for inquiry into mesne profit, the Trial Court while deciding Small Cause Suit No. 39 of 2001, directed an inquiry into mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in the case of Gulamhusain Asgaraly Vahanvaty (MANU/MH/0600/2011 : 2011 (4) Bom CR 169) (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 23 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 appellant-UCO Bank, this Court has taken a view that the relief of mesne profits is a consequential relief to the main relief and the trial court has to pass an order of holding inquiry into mesne profit when the suit is decreed. If such a suit for recovery of possession is dismissed, the question of payment of mesne profits does not arise and therefore, very often, issue of mesne profits is not framed since there is an independent provision in the CPC for holding an inquiry for mesne profits, and only when the suit is decreed further consequential relief is to be granted."
The aforesaid proposition has further been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in "Gangadhar Vs. Ravishankar and Ors.: 2024/BHC -NAG/3321" and the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court being reproduced hereinbelow:
"23. The next important aspect is with regard to the mesne profits. During the pendency of this appeal and after framing the substantial question of law on the application of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the additional substantial question as to the entitlement of mesne profits was framed. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 relying upon the decision in the case of Pillai v/s. Meenakshi Ayal MANU/SC/0268/1966 : 1966:INSC:97: AIR 1967 SC 155 and UCO Bank v/s. Asaram Samdani MANU/MH/1225/2016 : 2017 (2) ALL Mr. 92 submitted that the direction to hold an inquiry of mesne profits in the absence of any such prayer by the plaintiff is permissible. It needs to be stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not raise the ground for entitlement of mesne profits either before the trial Court or the first appellate Court. Respondent Nos.1 Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 24 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 and 2 did not even claim the mesne profits in his cross objection. It is to be noted that the direction for conducting the inquiry as to mesne profits is consequential to the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. It is to be noted that the order holding inquiry as to the mesne profits shall follow where the principal relief of possession of the property is granted.
24. In the case of Pillai v/s. Meenaskhi (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court has discretionary power to pass a decree directing an inquiry into future mesne profits and the Court may grant a general relief though it is not specifically asked for in the plaint.
25. In the case of UCO Bank .v/s. Asaram Samdani (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that under Order XX Rule 12 direction to hold inquiry of mesne profits in absence of any such prayer by plaintiff is permissible. Relief of mesne profits is consequential relief to the main relief such an inquiry is required to be held when the suit is decreed."
Thus the sum total of the above-mentioned discussion is that if a suit for possession and arrears of past mesne profits is decreed for the prayer of possession and there is no specific prayer for future mesne profits in the plaint, the Court in its discretion can conduct an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and can award future mesne profits, if entitlement for same is made out.
9.13. The present suit is filed for prayers of possession as well as for recovery of past arrears of rent and past mesne profits. The Plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent till the date of Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 25 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 termination of tenancy, which is terminated in terms of notice for termination dated 07.08.2023, which is admitted to be served upon the Defendant. The Plaintiff is entitled to past mesne profits from the date of termination of tenancy till institution of the suit. The Plaintiff has claimed the mesne profits at the rate of admitted rent and has not proved any other enhanced amount. The suit for possession was decreed on 27.08.2024. Thereafter this Court has framed an issue on the entitlement of the Plaintiff for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The parties were directed to lead evidence on the same. The Plaintiff in terms of her evidence has claimed the mesne profits till the date of vacation of the suit property. The adjudication on the aforesaid issue was in the nature of inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and no separate inquiry is required to be conducted for adjudicating the entitlement of the Plaintiff for future mesne profits. The scope of the inquiry for mesne profits was duly covered and adjudicated in terms of adjudication under Issue no. 1 framed in the suit and no fresh/further inquiry is again required to be conducted for ascertaining the entitlement or amount of the mesne profits.
9.14. Therefore, the Plaintiff has established on record that she is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,87,446/- from the Defendant towards the arrear of rent, past mesne profits and future mesne profits. It is stated in the rent agreement dated 25.07.2022, i.e., Ex.PW1/1 that the Defendant had paid an Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 26 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 amount of Rs.50,000/- towards an interest free security and tthe same was agreed to be refunded after adjustment of the dues payable by the Defendant. The aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- is liable to be deducted from the amount payable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,37,446/- (Rs.4,87,446 - Rs.50,000) from the Defendant. The Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
10. Final Decision/Relief:
10.1. The suit of the Plaintiff is decreed against the Defendant for an amount of Rs.4,37,446/-. The Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly, subject to payment of the deficient Court fees towards the decree of future mesne profits.
10.2. The Judgment in the present case was reserved on 30.01.2026 by the undersigned, when the undersigned was posted as District Judge-04, West, THC, Delhi and subsequently before pronouncement of Judgment, the undersigned was transferred to this Court in terms of transfer Order No.08/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2026 dated 06.02.2026 issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in terms of Note No.2 of the aforementioned transfer order, the present case was retained for pronouncement of Judgment and the same has been pronounced today.
The Court Ahlmad is directed to send / handover the files of the present case to the Court Ahlmad of the Court of Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 27 of 28 Civil DJ No. 85/2026 Ld. District Judge-04, West, THC, Delhi and the files are further directed to be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance by the Court Ahlmad of Ld. District Judge-04, West, THC, Delhi.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL CHANDHEL
CHANDHEL Date:
2026.02.13
15:12:56 +0530
Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL)
today on 13th of February, 2026 ASJ (Special FTC),
East, KKD, Delhi.
13.02.2026.
Pushpa Gupta Vs. Anu Bhayana Page No. 28 of 28
Civil DJ No. 85/2026