Delhi District Court
Mohd Kashif And Anr vs Ashok Kumar And Anr on 5 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-16, CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CSDJ no. 287/24
CNR No. DLCT01-004082-2024
1. Mohd. Kashif
2. Mohd. Kasim
Both sons of Mohd. Akil
Both r/o 2668-2669, Chhoti Baradari,
Ballimaran, Delhi-110006
Delhi-110006 ..............Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Ashok Kumar
2. Pawan Kumar
Both sons of late Matadin
r/o 2651, First and Second Floors,
Main Bazar, Ballimaran,
near Chhoti Baradari
Delhi-110006 ...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 18-03-2024
Date of Arguments : 13-12-2025
Date of judgment : 05-01-2026
Suit for possession, arrears of rent, damages/ mesne
profit for illegal use and occupation @ Rs. 25,000/- per month
with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18 per annum and
permanent injunction
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall proceed to dispose of the application u/o XII Rule 6 r/w 151 of CPC moved on behalf of plaintiffs for passing judgment qua relief of possession.
CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 1 of 9 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.01.05 16:13:54 +0530
2. It is submitted on behalf of applicant/ plaintiffs that the defendants have filed their joint written statement which has been taken on record. After going through the written statement of the defendants, it appears that no defense which requires any trial, has been raised by the defendants and, therefore, the present suit may be decreed qua the relief of possession by invoking the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. The necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC to decree the suit qua the relief of possession are fulfilled in the present case, which can be ascertained from the pleadings of the parties as detailed hereunder:-
(a) Ownership of the plaintiffs: There are 8 registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, the details of the same are duly mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint. The same are not disputed by the defendants in the written statement.
(b)Admission qua Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit: On purchase of the suit property by the plaintiffs, the defendants were duly informed by sending legal notice dated 09.07.2021 by the plaintiffs. No reply to the same was sent by the defendants. Legal notice not replied amounts to admission as laid down in Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram, 1980 RLR 44 Delhi. The plaintiffs filed civil suit no.1481/2021 titled as Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. against both the defendants, the detail of which is already mentioned in para no.4 of the present suit. The defendants filed their joint written statement in the above noted suit and admitted in para no. 4 on merits as under:-
"4.........It is submitted that the legal notice was served........ Though after receipt of the legal notice. the defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs being owner having purchased the suit property from previous owners....... But after receipt of summons of the this suit, came to know that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property."
CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 2 of 9
(c) On one side, the defendants admitted the plaintiffs as owners on receipt of the legal notice dated 09.07.2021 but subsequently on receipt of summons of the suit no.1481/2021, the defendants denied the ownership of the plaintiffs, thus, on denial of title of the plaintiffs, their tenancy came to an end under Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act and they became unauthorized occupants. The plaintiffs then filed the present suit.
3. The defendants filed the written statement in the present suit and they claimed to be owners by adverse possession. It is submitted that once the defendants including their mother claimed themselves to be tenants under Shamshul Nahar and on account of their status as tenant, the suit was withdrawn, therefore, they cannot take plea of adverse possession. It is settled law that once a tenant is always tenant.
4. The defendants in para no. 2 on merits of the written statement admitted as under:-
"2.... It is submitted that mother of the defendants was tenant and after her death, the tenancy devolved upon her sons namely Ram Prasad, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ram Prasad expired. The defendants inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month"
5. Once the defendants admitted that their mother was tenant and after her death, the same devolved upon defendants being her son and they inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month, they cannot claim themselves to be the owners by way of adverse possession.
6. In para no. 3 of the written statement on merits, the defendants admitted as under:-
3..........So far as legal notice dated 09.07.2021 duly sent through WhatsApp and speed post is concerned the reply filed by the defendants in the earlier suit by way of written statement the same reply is to be taken on the part of the defendants wherein the defendants claimed themselves to be tenants & acknowledged the plaintiffs as owners who purchased the suit property from CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 3 of 9 previous owner".
7. In para no. 6 of the written statement on merits, the defendants admitted as under:-
"6.. After admitting the plaintiffs as owners, the defendants later on rightly denied the title of the plaintiffs and they ceased to be a tenant of the suit property w.e.f. 27.10.2021 under the plaintiffs......"
8. It is further submitted that it is settled law that once a tenant denies the title of the landlord, then by virtue of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end. In the present case, the defendants once admitted the plaintiffs and their predecessor as owners and subsequently they denied the title of the plaintiffs.
9. Reply to the present application u/o 12 Rule 6 of CPC has been filed on behalf of defendants stating that the present application is not maintainable as there is no admission on the part of the defendants. The defendants have become the owner of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession as the suit for possession was filed by Shamshul Nahar titled as "Shamshul Nahar Vs. See Devi & Ors." bearing Civil Suit No.419/1980, who had claimed that the defendants are unauthorized occupants, the said suit was contested by the mother of the defendants including the defendants herein by filling written statement claiming to be tenants therein and thus, on account of claim of defendants as tenants, the suit was withdrawn vide order dated 22.11.1984 by the then owner Shamshul Nahar".
10. It is further denied that once the defendants including their mother claimed themselves to be tenants under Shamshul Nahar and on account of their status as tenant, the suit was withdrawn, therefore, they cannot take plea of adverse possession. It is settled law that once a tenant is always tenant.
CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 4 of 9
11. The facts of the case, as per plaint, are that the plaintiffs claim themselves to be the joint owners of the entire property no. VI/1281-1283(Old)/2651-2654(New) consisting of three shop nos. 2652, 2653, 2654 (all shops on ground floor) and first floor & second floor with roof rights known as property no.2651 (half) total measuring 62.70 Sq. Mtrs. Situated at Main Bazar, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 by virtue of the registered eight sale deeds (four sale deeds dated 05.07.2021 and four sale deeds dated 08.07.2021).
12. The property no. 2651(half), First Floor & Second Floor, Main Bazar, Ballimaran near Chhoti Bardari, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in site plan (hereinafter referred as "suit shop") was under the tenancy of Smt. Seei Devi W/o Late Matadin (mother of the defendants). After her death, the tenancy devolved upon her sons namely Ram Prasad, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ram Prasad expired. The defendants inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300/-per month.
13. After the purchase of the entire property no.2651(half) to 2654 including the suit property, the plaintiffs informed the defendants about the purchase of the suit property vide legal notice dated 09.07.2021 duly sent through WhatsApp and speed post and requested the defendants to deal all the matters in respect of the suit property and also pay the past rent of last three years, present and future rent to the plaintiffs.
14. Thereafter, since the defendants threatened to sublet and part with the possession of the suit property to third party, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant on 22.07.2021 bearing CS no.1481/2021 titled as Mohd. Kashif Vs Ashok Kumar & Anr. which was assigned to CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 5 of 9 the court of Ms. Neha Garg, Ld. Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. On 06.12.2021, the defendants filed their written statement dated 27.10.2021 in the aforesaid suit no. 1481/2021 and denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed to be owners by virtue of adverse possession. Denial of title of the plaintiffs to the suit property by the defendants in these facts and circumstances tantamount to repudiation/forfeiture of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiffs withdrew the suit with liberty to file fresh comprehensive suit, inclusive of relief of possession before competent court, vide order dated 03.02.2023. Therefore, the defendants are liable to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Since the status of defendant in the suit property has become as a trespasser w.e.f. 27.10.2021, therefore, they are liable to pay the damages/mesne profit @ Rs. 25,000 per month from 01-11-2021 till handing over the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from 01.11.2021 till its realization. On 20.02.2024, the defendant no.1 met the plaintiff no.1 in the area near suit property and asked him to register the sale deed in favour of the defendants, otherwise, he would handover the possession of the suit property to any third person. The plaintiff no.1 clearly refused for the same. Hence, the plaintiffs have genuine apprehension that the defendants may sublet, assign and part with the possession of the suit property to any third person.
15. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has relied upon the following authorities:
(1) Monika Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Subhash Tyagi @ Moolraj Tyagi & Ors. CS (OS) 230/20, IA 7755/20 and 14089/21 of Hon'ble High CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 6 of 9 Court of Delhi;
(2) Jyoti Sharma Vs. Vishnu Goyal & Anr., SLP (C) No. 29500/24 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(3) Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram, RFA 186/69;
(4) R. S. Shekhawat Vs. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., RFA no. 592/17;
(5) Hans Raj Vs. Raghuvir Singh & ors., RFA no. 633/14.
16. This court has heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record.
17. It is well settled that the admission has to be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and only then, a judgment can be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. In para no. 8 of the written statement, the defendants have claimed that one civil suit no. 419/1980 had been filed by the previous owner of the suit property namely Shamshul Nahar, which suit was contested by the mother of the defendants. Subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn by the previous owner on 22-11-1984. Thus, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to explain the circumstances in which the said civil suit bearing no. 419/1980 was withdrawn. The plaintiff has neither filed replication nor explained the circumstances in which the above-stated civil suit was withdrawn in the present application. Thus, in the opinion of this court, an opportunity ought to be given to the defendants to prove their defence of having become owner of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession.
18. It is not in dispute that a judgment on admission u/o XII Rule 6 of CPC can be passed by the court suo motu without any application. Section XII Rule 6 (1) of CPC reads as under:-
"(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 7 of 9 waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions."
19. As per the plaintiff's case, the plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 05-07-2021 and 08-07-2021, annexed as Annexure P-3 to P-10 with the plaint. Perusal of plaint and documents annexed therein reveals that there is an admission on the part of plaintiffs that the defendants have inherited the tenancy right in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month. There is recital in the sale deeds that the defendants have inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property vide clause 4(d), which reads as under:-
"(d) The tenancy of First Floor & Second floor with roof of property no.
2651(half) was in the name of Smt. See Devi. After her death the tenancy devolved upon her sons namely Ram Prasad, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ram Prasad expired. However, presently Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Pawan Kumar both sons of Late Matadin inherited the tenancy rights in the said property no. 2651(half) at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month."
20. Admittedly, no suit for eviction of defendants has been filed by the plaintiffs or their predecessor in interest in accordance with the provisions of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The plaintiffs have already withdrawn the suit for permanent injunction vide CS no. 1481/2021. No cogent reason for withdrawing the said civil suit have been specified by the plaintiff in the plaint. Nor the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed on record any authority whereby the suit for the permanent injunction is not maintainable merely because the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiffs. Keeping in view the admitted monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month, this court is of the opinion that the suit property is squarely covered under Section 3(c) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is no longer res integra that a tenant who is protected under the provisions of CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 8 of 9 The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be evicted by the civil court.
21. Section 50(1) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 reads as under:-
"Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority."
22. Thus, it is clear that a tenant who is protected under the provisions of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be evicted from the tenanted premises otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Rest of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs are consequential in nature.
23. In view of admission of the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as in the sale deeds annexed therewith to the effect that the defendants have inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month, this court is of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred u/s 50(1) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Consequently, this court has no option but to reject the plaint u/o 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. The citations relied upon by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs are not found to be applicable in view of the peculiar facts of the present case. As such, the plaint stands rejected and application u/o 12 Rule 6 of CPC also stands disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ ARORA
on 05-01-2026 ARORA 16:14:11 +0530
Date: 2026.01.05
(PANKAJ ARORA)
DISTRICT JUDGE-16/ CENTRAL:
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI/ 05-01-2026
CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 9 of 9