Delhi District Court
Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Ravinder on 19 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Susheel Bala Dagar
RCA DJ 108/25
CNR No. DLWT01-007916-2025
Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Shri Sita Ram Gupta
R/o House no. 1602,
Pataudi House, Daryaganj,
New Delhi-110002.
Through Attorney Shri Anil Goel
S/o Shri M.L. Goel,
R/o FC-112, Tagore Garden,
West Delhi, Delhi-110027. .....Appellant
Versus
Shri Ravinder
S/o Shri Manjeet Singh
R/o 172C, DDA Janta Flats,
Shivaji Enclave Extension,
New Delhi-110054. ....Respondent
Date of institution of case : 11.08.2025
Date on which judgment was reserved : 10.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present judgment shall dispose of the first appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ No.1615/2024 titled Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta through Attorney v. Ravinder, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits/damages, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:15 +0530 came to be dismissed. The appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 and prays for decreeing of the suit as prayed for before the Ld. Trial Court. Brief Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal
2. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be the lawful owner of property bearing Flat No.172- C, DDA Janta Flats, Shivaji Enclave Extension, New Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") by virtue of a registered sale deed.
3. It was pleaded in the plaint that the defendant had taken the suit property on rent from the plaintiff on 01.07.2019 at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- excluding electricity, water and house tax charges. According to the plaintiff, the tenancy was oral and the defendant continued to pay rent till May, 2023 through Paytm transactions.
4. It was further pleaded that the defendant paid rent for April, 2023 on 11.04.2023 and thereafter paid rent for May, 2023 through two separate Paytm transactions dated 26.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 amounting to Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. According to the plaintiff, no rent was paid thereafter and the defendant fell into arrears with effect from 01.06.2023.
5. The plaintiff further alleged that house tax liability in respect of the suit property had increased and that the defendant was also liable to pay such charges but failed to discharge the same despite repeated requests. It was further the case of the plaintiff that a legal notice dated 03.10.2024 RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:19 +0530 was issued terminating the tenancy of the defendant with effect from 31.10.2024 and calling upon the defendant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property besides payment of arrears of rent, house tax and damages.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Decree of possession of the suit property;
(ii) Recovery of Rs.94,562.50/- towards alleged arrears of rent and interest;
(iii) Recovery of mesne profits/user charges @ Rs.10,000/- per month;
(iv) Permanent injunction restraining creation of third-party interest; and
(v) Costs of the suit.
Proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court
7. The record reveals that summons of the suit were served upon the defendant physically as well as through WhatsApp. However, despite service, neither any written statement was filed nor appearance was caused on behalf of the defendant.
8. Vide order dated 20.01.2025, the right of the defendant to file written statement was closed and the defendant was proceeded ex parte. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined his attorney holder, namely, Sh. Anil Goel, as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence and relied upon the following documents:
a) Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/1;
b) General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/2;
RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:23 +0530
c) Printout of WhatsApp/payment screenshots Ex.PW1/3;
d) Legal notice dated 03.10.2024 Ex.PW1/4;
e) Postal tracking report Ex.PW1/5;
f) Electricity bill Ex.PW1/6; and
g) Certificate under Section 63 BSA Ex.PW1/7.
9. After considering the exparte evidence led by the plaintiff, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment dated 11.07.2025 holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and consequently failed to discharge the burden of proof. Grounds of appeal
10. The impugned judgment has been challenged primarily on the following grounds:
a) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the testimony of PW-1 remained unrebutted and unchallenged owing to exparte proceedings;
b) That the Ld. Trial Court wrongly disregarded oral tenancy despite settled law that tenancy may be oral;
c) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the sale deed, legal notice, WhatsApp payment proof and unrebutted testimony of PW-1;
d) That adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the defendant for failure to contest the proceedings and failure to reply to legal notice;
e) That the observations regarding electricity bill being in the name of attorney were conjectural and beyond pleadings;
f) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly apply principles contained under Sections 112 and 113 BSA relating to burden of proof concerning RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:27 +0530 landlord-tenant relationship and ownership.
It is contended that the impugned judgment suffers from illegality, perversity and misappreciation of evidence and therefore deserves to be set aside.
Submissions
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that once the defendant was proceeded exparte and the testimony of PW-1 remained unrebutted, the Court ought to have accepted the case of the plaintiff as proved on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
12. It was further argued that oral tenancy is legally recognized and no written rent agreement is mandatory for proving tenancy. It was submitted that the payment screenshots, legal notice and ownership documents sufficiently established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
13. It was also argued that the defendant never replied to the legal notice terminating tenancy and such silence warranted drawing of adverse inference. Despite opportunity, none appeared for the respondent. Points for determination
14. Upon perusal of the record and submissions advanced, the following points arise for determination:
(i) Whether the plaintiff/appellant succeeded in proving the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in respect of the suit property?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff/appellant proved entitlement to possession, RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.19
17:47:30 +0530
arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction?
(iii) Whether the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2025 suffers from perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in appeal?
15. Before proceeding to appreciate the evidence, it would be apposite to remind oneself of the limited contours of appellate scrutiny in a first appeal arising from dismissal of a civil suit. A first appellate Court is indeed the final Court on facts and law and is empowered to reassess evidence independently. However, interference with findings of the Ld. trial Court is warranted only where such findings are perverse, contrary to record, based upon misreading of evidence, or where material evidence has been ignored.
16. Equally settled is the proposition that even where the defendant remains exparte, the plaintiff does not secure an automatic decree. The burden of proving the case remains upon the plaintiff and the Court is under a legal obligation to examine whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden placed upon him in accordance with law. Court observations and findings Point No. (I) Whether the plaintiff/appellant succeeded in proving the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in respect of the suit property?
17. Since the entire edifice of the plaintiff's claim for possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and injunction rests upon the assertion that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property on 01.07.2019 RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:35 +0530 at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, the foremost question requiring determination is whether the plaintiff succeeded in establishing the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
18. The settled position of law is that the burden to prove a fact lies upon the person who asserts its existence. The plaintiff, having approached the Court seeking possession on the basis of termination of tenancy, was required to establish, at the very threshold, that the defendant was inducted into possession as a tenant.
19. Section 104 BSA (corresponding to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) embodies the cardinal principle relating to burden of proof and provides that the person who desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent upon the existence of facts asserted by him must prove that those facts exist. At the same time, Section 112 BSA (corresponding to Section 109 of the Evidence Act) provides that when it is shown that parties have been acting as landlord and tenant, the burden shifts upon the person denying such relationship.
20. However, the applicability of Section 112 presupposes that some foundational evidence has first been adduced to establish that the parties were acting as landlord and tenant. The statutory presumption does not arise merely upon a bald assertion in pleadings unsupported by cogent foundational material.
21. In the present case, the plaintiff pleaded that tenancy commenced on 01.07.2019 and continued till May, 2023. Surprisingly, however, no rent agreement, rent receipt, rent ledger, rent acknowledgment, police RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:39 +0530 verification, correspondence, identity proof of the defendant in relation to tenancy, or any contemporaneous material evidencing induction of tenancy has been produced.
22. The Court is conscious of the fact that tenancy may indeed be oral and absence of a written rent agreement is not fatal to a landlord's case. Indian Courts have consistently recognized validity of oral tenancy. However, even an oral tenancy must be proved by reliable circumstances, conduct of parties, documentary corroboration or surrounding evidence.
23. Thus, the mere absence of a written agreement could not have been treated as fatal in itself. To that extent, the reasoning of the Ld. Trial Court deserves some refinement. Nevertheless, the crucial question remains whether the plaintiff adduced sufficient independent material to probabilistically establish oral tenancy. Upon scrutiny of the record, the Court finds that the answer has to be returned in the negative. The plaintiff relied substantially upon Ex.PW1/3, namely printouts of WhatsApp/payment screenshots allegedly showing payment of rent through Paytm.
24. A perusal of Ex.PW1/3 reveals that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was allegedly transferred on 11.04.2023; an amount of Rs.4,000/- was allegedly transferred on 26.05.2023; and an amount of Rs.1,000/- was allegedly transferred on 30.05.2023. According to the plaintiff, these constituted rent for April and May, 2023. However, several material deficiencies become evident.
25. Firstly, there is no cogent material linking the person reflected in RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:45 +0530 the screenshots to the respondent/defendant before the Court except a bare assertion that the sender was "Ravinder." No identification document, mobile number linkage, tenancy document, acknowledgment, admission or independent evidence has been brought to establish that the "Ravinder" reflected in the screenshots is the very same defendant impleaded in the suit.
26. Secondly, even assuming arguendo that the sender was the defendant, there is no material showing the nature of those payments. The screenshots do not independently establish that the said amounts were remitted specifically towards rent of the suit premises.
27. Thirdly, the plaintiff pleaded that tenancy subsisted continuously from 01.07.2019 till May, 2023. If that were so, some contemporaneous evidence of prior payment, rent receipts, bank statement, Paytm history, communication, or even testimony of neighbouring occupants or persons aware of occupation could reasonably have been expected.
28. Significantly, not even a single payment record from 2019 till March, 2023 was produced. The complete absence of any evidence for nearly four years of alleged tenancy assumes significance. While civil cases are decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, even such standard requires the Court to assess whether the version set up appears probable from surrounding circumstances. Mere ipse dixit of a witness, without adequate supporting circumstances, cannot by itself discharge the burden where foundational facts are disputed or uncertain.
RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:48 +0530
29. The appellant has argued that testimony of PW-1 remained unrebutted and therefore ought to have been accepted as gospel truth. This submission, though attractive at first blush, cannot be accepted in absolute terms. It is a settled proposition that unrebutted evidence is not synonymous with automatically proved evidence. Even exparte evidence must inspire confidence and withstand judicial scrutiny.
30. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani AIR 2003 SC 2508, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where proceedings are ex parte, the Court must scrutinize pleadings and evidence and satisfy itself that the plaintiff has proved entitlement to relief. Mere absence of defence does not result in an automatic decree. Likewise, in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao AIR 1999 SC 1441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that although adverse inference may arise where a party abstains from contesting proceedings, the plaintiff is still required to stand upon the strength of his own case.
31. In the present case, the Court finds that the plaintiff attempted to prove tenancy solely through self-serving oral deposition coupled with three isolated payment screenshots unsupported by contextual evidence. Such evidence, in the opinion of the Court, falls short of establishing a continuous tenancy commencing from July, 2019.
32. The Court also finds force in the observation of the Ld. Trial Court that the evidentiary chain remained incomplete. However, the reasoning deserves limited correction. The Ld. Trial Court observed that the electricity bill being in the name of the attorney holder raised doubts RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.19 17:47:51 +0530 about tenancy and observed that ordinarily the bill ought to be in the name either of owner or tenant.
33. The Court is of the view that such observation was not entirely warranted. It is neither unusual nor legally impermissible for an electricity connection to stand in the name of a caretaker, attorney holder or previous occupant. The mere fact that the electricity bill stood in the name of attorney holder could not by itself discredit tenancy. Yet, this infirmity in reasoning does not materially alter the final outcome, because the dismissal of the suit principally rests upon failure to satisfactorily establish the landlord-tenant relationship. Equally, the contention of the appellant regarding non-reply to legal notice dated 03.10.2024 also does not materially improve the plaintiff's case.
34. It is true that silence in response to a legal notice may in some cases justify drawing an adverse inference. However, an adverse inference cannot substitute proof of foundational facts. A legal notice issued unilaterally by one party cannot, merely by remaining un-replied, become substantive proof of tenancy. Put differently, failure to reply to a notice may strengthen an already established case, but cannot independently create a landlord-tenant relationship where the same otherwise remains inadequately proved.
35. The appellant also relied upon Section 112 BSA. However, as discussed above, before the presumption regarding landlord and tenant can arise, it must first be shown that the parties had been acting as landlord and tenant. The foundational requirement itself remained RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.19 DAGAR 17:47:55 +0530 insufficiently established. The Court therefore concludes that the plaintiff/appellant failed to satisfactorily establish the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Accordingly, Point No.
(i) is decided against the appellant/plaintiff and in favour of the respondent/defendant.
Point No. (ii) Whether the plaintiff/appellant proved entitlement to possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction?
36. Having held that the plaintiff failed to satisfactorily establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, the next question which arises is whether the plaintiff nevertheless succeeded in proving entitlement to the substantive reliefs claimed in the suit. The relief of possession as prayed by the plaintiff was founded entirely upon the assertion that the defendant was inducted as a tenant and that such tenancy stood terminated by legal notice dated 03.10.2024 with effect from 31.10.2024.
37. It is significant to note that the suit is not one based simpliciter upon title against a rank trespasser or unauthorized occupant. The plaintiff did not plead independent facts showing the manner in which the defendant entered possession except through tenancy. The plaint is fundamentally structured upon the case of landlord and tenant, default in payment of rent, determination of tenancy and consequential liability for mesne profits. Thus, the existence of tenancy constituted the foundational fact upon which the entire cause of action rested. Once the foundational fact itself remained unproved, the consequential reliefs necessarily become unsustainable.
RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.05.19 17:47:59 +0530
38. The appellant has sought to contend that since ownership of the suit property stood proved through the registered sale deed Ex.PW1/1, possession ought to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. This argument, though appealing at first glance, cannot be accepted in the peculiar factual matrix of the present case. Proof of ownership by itself does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a decree for possession against a particular defendant unless the plaintiff also proves the defendant's status or manner of occupation.
39. A plaintiff cannot merely establish title and thereafter obtain a decree against any person without proving how such person came into possession or what legal relationship existed inter se the parties. In the present case, the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that the defendant was a trespasser from inception. On the contrary, the plaintiff consistently pleaded that the defendant was inducted as a tenant on 01.07.2019. Consequently, once tenancy itself remained unproved, the plaintiff's claim for possession suffered from a foundational evidentiary defect. Likewise, the claim for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.94,562.50/- necessarily presupposes proof of tenancy, agreed rate of rent, period of occupation and default.
40. The plaintiff failed to prove these essential ingredients through cogent documentary or corroborative evidence. Mere oral assertion regarding agreed rent, unsupported by rent receipts, consistent payment records, tenancy correspondence or other independent material, could not have been accepted mechanically solely because proceedings were ex RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.19 17:48:03 +0530 parte. The claim for arrears of rent therefore could not have been decreed in absence of satisfactory proof regarding contractual tenancy and liability. Similar is the position with regard to mesne profits and damages. Mesne profits are compensatory in nature and arise where possession becomes unauthorized after cessation of lawful entitlement. In the present case, mesne profits were claimed on the basis that tenancy stood terminated on 31.10.2024.
41. However, when the plaintiff failed to establish the very factum of tenancy, the subsequent assertion that tenancy stood terminated also loses legal efficacy. Even otherwise, except a bald assertion that the suit property could fetch Rs.10,000/- per month in the open market, no independent evidence whatsoever was adduced to establish prevailing rental value. No local witness, rent deed of comparable premises, property dealer testimony, market assessment or documentary material was brought on record to probabilistically substantiate the claim of mesne profits at the rate claimed. Therefore, even independently viewed, the claim for mesne profits was incapable of being granted in the absence of foundational evidence.
42. The prayer for permanent injunction restraining alienation, subletting or creation of third-party interest was also consequential in nature. Such relief presupposed proof of possession of the defendant in the capacity alleged by the plaintiff and the apprehended unlawful conduct. In the absence of satisfactory proof of the plaintiff's primary case, the consequential relief of injunction also could not survive. The RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.19 17:48:06 +0530 Court therefore finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden placed upon him.
43. However, the Court considers it necessary to clarify that dismissal of the suit cannot be sustained merely because there was no written rent agreement or because the electricity connection stood in the name of attorney holder. Such observations, though made by the Ld. Trial Court, are not decisive factors in affirming the dismissal.
44. The dismissal is being upheld primarily because the plaintiff failed to establish, even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and consequential liability of the defendant. Point No. (ii) is accordingly decided against the appellant/plaintiff and in favour of the respondent/defendant. Point No. (iii) Whether the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2025 suffers from perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in appeal?
45. It is trite law that a first appellate Court possesses wide powers to reappreciate evidence and reassess findings of fact and law. Nevertheless, appellate interference is warranted only where the findings of the trial Court are shown to be perverse, contrary to law, unsupported by evidence or based upon material misreading of the record.
46. In the present case, the Court has independently reassessed the pleadings, documentary evidence and testimony of PW-1. Though certain observations of the Ld. Trial Court regarding the electricity bill and RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.19
17:48:09
+0530
absence of written rent agreement may not be wholly persuasive, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Trial Court cannot be termed perverse or illegal. The core finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove tenancy is borne out from the record and does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting appellate interference. The plaintiff essentially sought reversal of the judgment on the ground that unrebutted testimony ought to have been accepted in toto. Such submission cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position that even ex parte evidence must independently satisfy judicial scrutiny.
47. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that ex parte proceedings do not relieve the Court of the duty to examine whether the plaintiff has proved entitlement to relief. Similarly, in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2011 SC 3590, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not merely upon weakness or absence of defence. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2025 warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal deserves dismissal. Conclusion
48. In view of the foregoing discussions and findings returned on the points for determination, the Court holds that the appellant/plaintiff failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-04, West District, RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.19 17:48:13 +0530 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ No.1615/2024. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
49. The judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court are hereby affirmed, though with the clarificatory observations made hereinabove regarding the limited evidentiary value of the electricity bill and the non-essentiality of a written rent agreement for proving tenancy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this judgment.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.05.19 17:48:17 +0530 Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) on 19th Day of May 2026 District Judge-08, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. (This judgment contains 17 pages.) RCA DJ 108/25 Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Ravinder Page No. 17 of 17