Delhi District Court
Sh. Gajender Yadav vs Sh. Sunny on 6 January, 2026
CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030029332017
CS SCJ No. 1396/17
DLWT03-002933-2017
SH. GAJENDER YADAV
S/O Sh. Jai Singh Yadav
R/O RZ-C-21, Vishnu Garden Extension,
New Delhi. ........PLAINTIFF
Versus
SH. SUNNY
S/O Sh. Kale
R/O E-227, First Floor,
DDA Colony, Khayala,
New Delhi. ......DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, FOR RECOVERY OF
ARREARS OF RENT, FOR DAMAGES/MESNE PROFIT AND
FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
Date of Institution : 16.10.2017
Date of Final Arguments : 08.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.01.2026
Digitally signed
VIVEK by VIVEK
KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date: 2026.01.06
16:30:23 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),
PAGE 1/34 06.01.2026
CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
Judgment
1.This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages / mesne profits, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant.
VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of possession with respect to the first floor portion of the property bearing no. E-227 DDA Colony, Khayala, New Delhi ( herein after referred as suit property) and further seeking the relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his employees, agents, assignees etc. from parting with the possession of the suit property or any part thereof or to create any third party interest in the suit premises, or in any manner by transferring the possession of the same and the defendant may also be restrained from causing any damages/losses to the suit property.
The plaintiff further seeks relief of decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant, his employees, agents, assignees etc. to pay the consumption charges to the concerned department as per use and consumption of the defendant. The plaintiff has further sought relief of decree of recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 12,000/- for three months w.e.f. July, 2017 till September, 2017 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant towards the rent due and Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 16:30:43 +0530 PAGE 2/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sought relief of a decree of recovery of mesne profit and damages against the defendant and in favor of plaintiff thereby directing the defendant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as damages for illegally occupying the suit premises from the date of suit till the time the defendant vacates the same and possession is handed over to the plaintiff.
2.1. As per the plaint, the case of plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of the property i.e. bearing no. E-227, DDA Colony, Khayala, New Delhi. That the plaintiff purchased the said property in the year 2015. That the defendant was tenant in the said property at the time when the plaintiff purchased the said property for the entire E-227 first floor, DDA Colony, Khayala, New Delhi (suit premises) at monthly rent of Rs. 4000/-. That the suit premises in the occupation of the defendant are shown in red colour in the site plan. That the Ground Floor portion of the said property was in the tenancy of Sh Nagender Singh. That the said tenant Sh. Nagender Singh was not paying the rent regularly and he also availed the financial facility from the plaintiff. Be that as it may the plaintiff initiated litigation against said Nagender Kumar, finally the court cases were settled before the Mediation Centre and the said tenant vacated the ground floor portion in the month of July, 2017. Thereafter the plaintiff inducted one Sh. Sarfaraj Ansari S/o Sh Peshkar Ansari as tenant in the ground floor portion. That since new Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 3/34 06.01.2026 2026.01.06
16:31:01 +0530
CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
tenant has come in the aforesaid property the defendant started creating nuisance and also created disturbance in the peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the ground floor portion by the new tenant. That the defendant did not allow him to go upstairs for the purpose of fixing and maintaining the water tank and also threatened him with dire consequences in case he dares to climb the stairs. That said tenant informed the plaintiff with regard to the said behaviour and when the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked him for regulating his behavior and attitude the defendant also threatened the plaintiff who is owner of the aforesaid property that if anyone does dare to go to the First Floor he would cause serious injury and harm to the person of the said person and would also cause damage to the property. That the threat given by the defendant was taken serious and alarming. That the plaintiff filed complaint to the police against the defendant as he also threatened the plaintiff that he would implicate the plaintiff in false case of outraging the modesty of wife of the defendant. That the intentions of the defendant are not bonafide and it appears he wanted to grab the property of the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant also not paid the rent for last three months.
2.2. That under these circumstances the plaintiff does not want the defendant to be his tenant anymore and the plaintiff by way of legal notice dated 06.09.2017 terminated the tenancy of the defendant and the defendant has been called upon to pay the arrears Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 4/34 06.01.2026 2026.01.06
16:31:12
+0530
CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
of rent and to vacate the tenanted portion within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the legal notice. That the plaintiff also made it clear that if the defendant does not vacate the suit property he would be liable to pay the damages towards use and occupation of the same at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month. That the defendant despite service of legal notice for termination of tenancy as well as calling upon the defendant for vacating the suit property after 15 days from the date of receipt of said legal notice dated 06.09.2017 and further calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent as well as damages in case the defendant does not vacate the suit property terms of legal notice @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, failed to comply with the terms of the legal notice. As far as the consumption charges are concerned the defendant has not paid the same as no such receipts are furnished to the plaintiff. That in the present facts and circumstances when the defendant is not coming forward nor he is vacating the suit property and so far not cleared the arrears of rent and has not been paying the damages also after termination of the tenancy the plaintiff has left with no option but to file the present suit for seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit property as well as for recovery of arrears of rent/damages and other reliefs against the defendant. The defendant has not informed the plaintiff alongwith receipts of payment of consumption charges. That the plaintiff had no other efficacious & alternate remedy except to approach this honble court by way of present suit. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 16:31:19 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 5/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny VERSION OF DEFENDANT:-
3. As per the written statement, the preliminary objections have been taken that the plaintiff has/ had no landlord tenant relationship with the defendant who is lawfully in possession from last 30 years. That the plaintiff has not placed on record any rent agreement or other documents to establish the landlord tenant relationship. That the plaintiff has failed to produce any alleged rent receipt in respect of suit property and the plaintiff has also failed to plead any acknowledgment from the side of the defendant regarding the alleged payment of rent to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has not stated that from when the Defendant is residing in the suit property allegedly as a tenant. That the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the defendant and the plaintiff or Naresh at any time. That the defendant herein is completely unknown to the Plaintiff and Naresh. That the defendant herein has never met to Plaintiff and Naresh prior to this issue. That the defendant is residing in the suit property as an exclusive owner hence question of paying rent to anyone is a false allegation.
3.1. It is further submitted that plaintiff is neither the owner of suit property nor the suit property was ever allotted to the plaintiff or his predecessor or from whom the plaintiff is claiming ownership by way of purchase. That the plaintiff has not produced any allotment letter / slip in respect of suit property to prove that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff or Naresh by the Govt.
Digitally signed(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 6/34 06.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 16:31:32 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny /DDA. And without producing/proving the original allotment slip/ letter the case of the plaintiff is not admissible prima facie as the suit property is not amenable to transfer. That the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff never can be the owner, by way of alleged transfer, of suit property as the suit property is situated in resettlement colony and as per the record of DUSIB this suit property was allotted by DDA and was handed over to Slum & JJ Deptt. for management purposes only. It is further submitted that as per the record of DUSIB, at the time of allotment, a License Fee of Rs. 8/- per month was fixed for a 25. sq. yds. property. It is further submitted that as per the DUSIB the land in which the suit property situated are known as Nazul Lands of which the ownership vest with the Govt. of India only and requires to be dealt as per the policy of Govt. of India, hence the actual owner of the suit property is Govt. of India. It is submitted that the suit property was allotted under license in seventies thereafter the grandmother of the defendant had constructed the suit property (i.e. first floor of E-
227). That the plaintiff has not produced any admissible title document in respect of suit property since the origin of suit property and the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming ownership are forged, fabricated and false and not admissible in evidence. That the plaintiff has also failed to place on record from whom the suit property was allegedly devolved to Naresh.Digitally signed
VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.01.06 16:31:40 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 7/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny 3.2. It is further stated that the present suit is bad in law for non joinder of necessary party as the ownership of the suit property is still with Central Government/ DDA which has not been made party to this suit. Hence the Govt. of India/ DDA/ allottee are the necessary party to this suit and without impleading the same the present suit is not maintainable. It is further stated that the present suit is barred by law as the suit property was allotted under license scheme by the DDA and the licensee has no interest in the property as there is no transfer of interest in the licensee. That license is not connected with the ownership of any land and beside all these the license is non-transferable. So the allegation that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property in 2015 is also against the provisions of law especially given in Transfer of Property Act and other relevant laws. That the alleged documents upon which the plaintiff is claiming himself as alleged owner, are not registered as per the provisions of Indian Registration Act hence the same are not admissible in evidence. That the plaintiff is also silent about the origin of suit property. That the suit property, as per terms and conditions of DDA / allotment, is non-transferable hence the plea of the plaintiff that he has become owner of the suit property by way of purchase is against the law.
3.3. It is further submitted that the suit property is being actually, physically and exclusively occupied by the defendant and his family members from last more than 30 years continuously to Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 8/34 06.01.2026AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 16:31:49 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny the exclusion of every one, without any type of interference from any one in any manner. The electricity meter of the suit premises was in the name of father of the present defendant. That all the constructions, maintenance and improvements in the suit property have been made by the defendant and his predecessor family members. It is further submitted that the possession of the defendant and his family is/was open without any concealment since the day when the property was constructed by the grandmother of the defendant. Beside all the rest, in alternate, the defendant has also acquired title/ ownership of the suit property by way of adverse possession. That the present suit has been filed without any cause of action as the plaintiff has not placed on record any rent agreement or other documents to prove the landlord tenant relationship. On the other hand it has been admitted by the plaintiff that the defendant was living in the suit property in the year 2015 also beside the fact that the defendant is living in the said property since the day of his birth and earlier to that the predecessor family members were living in the suit property exclusively. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff has no locus to file the suit. That the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Court. That the conduct of the plaintiff is also dis-entitling him for any relief including the sought relief. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is an abuse of process of law. The plaintiff has filed the Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 9/34 06.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 16:31:58 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny present suit with a malafide and illegal motive to grab the suit property by obtaining a favourable order from this Hon'ble Court by playing fraud and in connivance of police and electricity department.
3.4. In Reply on merits, the averments of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is further submitted that the suit property was allotted under license in seventies and thereafter the grandmother of the defendant had constructed the suit property (i.e. first floor of E-227) by investing her own fund and labour and since then the grandmother of the defendant resided in the suit property with her family till her death on 16.12.2006. That the defendant is residing in the said property since his birth and had never paid any rent to anyone. That it is further submitted that as per the DUSIB, only the concerned Deptt. of the Board is authorized to charge damages from the unauthorized occupants and to evict the trespassers from any such property, including suit property, in case of any violation of allotment. It is further submitted that the defendant is residing since his birth with his family in the suit property. That the ground floor of the suit property was being occupied by Sh. Ramnath @ Ram Charan who died 1999. That the grandmother of the Defendant was living in the suit property with her four sons i.e. Sh. Pragat Pal Singh @ Kale, Sh. Kamal Pal Singh, Sh. Jagpal Singh, Sh. Pradeep Singh@ Kuldeep Singh. That it is pertinent to mention that out of abovenamed four sons, only Sh.Digitally signed by VIVEK
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 10/34 06.01.2026 2026.01.06
16:32:09 +0530
CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
Pradeep Singh @ Kuldeep Singh was married and other three remained unmarried during his life time and had died issue less.
That the marriage of Sh. Pradeep Singh @ Kuldeep Singh was solemnized with Ms. Reena and out of said wedlock two children were born i.e. the Defendant herein and the younger brother of defendant i.e. Jaspreet. That thereafter in the year 2006, the real father of the Defendant (i.e. Pradeep Singh@ Kuldeep Singh) died and mother of the Defendant preferred to remarry. Thereafter mother of the Defendant left the Defendant and his younger brother forever under the guardianship, responsibility and care of Smt. Bachan Kaur (grandmother of the Defendant) and remarried with some other person. It is submitted that at the time of the death of Defendant's real father, the Defendant and younger brother of the Defendant were minor. That thereafter the Defendant herein is taken in adoption by Sh. Pragat Singh @ Kale and was brought up in suit property by Sh. Pragat Singh @kale only. That in the first quarter of 2006, some unsocial/ land grabber people, including one Dilbag Singh R/o Vishnu Garden, had also tried to dispossess the defendant and his family illegally and regarding, which a complaint was made to police on 28.03.2006 jointly by the uncle and adoptive father of the defendant herein. However, thereafter those unsocial people never directly interfered in the peaceful possession of the suit property by the defendant. That on 16.12.2006, the grandmother of the Defendant also expired. That thereafter Sh. Kamal Pal and Sh.
Digitally signed Jagpal (uncle of the Defendant) had also expired. VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date: AGARWAL 2026.01.06 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 16:32:23 +0530
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 11/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny 3.5 It is further stated that thereafter on the death of the grandmother of the defendant, on 22.10.2007 an electricity meter was applied for the suit property by and in the name of Sh. Pragat Singh and the same was duly installed in the suit property by the electricity department. That thereafter on 11.01.2008, the electricity meter of the Defendant's house was stolen by some unsocial/ land grabber people regarding which various complaints were made to electricity department and on 06.03.2008 regarding the same, a police complaint was also made. Thereafter the new electricity meter had been installed in the suit property in the name of Sh. Pragat Singh @ Kale (adoptive father of the Defendant). That thereafter in 2013, Sh. Pragat Singh also expired leaving the Defendant and younger brother of Defendant behind in the suit property. That after the death of Sh. Pragat Singh, no one remained in the family of the Defendant to take care of Defendant and younger brother of the Defendant hence the Defendant and his younger brother had left with no other option but to start living In the suit premise Independently. That thereafter the Defendant marries with Ms Simran in 2016. and now the Defendant has become father as in the month of August 2017, the wife of the Defendant has given birth to a girl child. It is further submitted that the daughter of the Defendant is having some problem in her legs since birth for which treatment is being given. That the Defendant has studied up to class fifth only and is presently doing the work of car washing and earns approximately Rs. 6000/- to 7000/- per Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 PAGE 12/34 06.01.2026 16:32:32 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny month. That the wife of the Defendant is house wife. That the Defendant duly paid all the electricity bills in respect of suit premise. That the electricity department had issued the last electricity bill for CA No. 103005320 on the name of Sh. Pragat Singh, of Rs. 880 dated 13.07.2017 which was also paid by the Defendant. That thereafter on 20.07.2017, the employee of the electricity department came to the suit property and replaced the old meter with new mater and also issued a duly signed slip for the same however, at that time, the Defendant was not at home so the wife of the defendant signed the said slip after the replacement of meter. That on the asking of the wife of the Defendant, the employee of electricity department told that it is routine replacement, however, the said meter was removed by the electricity department without Issuing any notice to present defendant because the said meter was removed illegally by the electricity department in connivance of present plaintiff. That thereafter in the month of August 2017, the Defendant received electricity bill for the suit premise but to the big surprise, the electricity bill was issued on the name of plaintiff and CA number has also been changed. That thereafter the Defendant tried to contact concerned staff of Electricity department but of no avail. Thereafter the Defendant made complaint to SHO, Raghubir Nagar, vide DD No. 45-B dated 25.08.2017 regarding the fraud committed by plaintiff in connivance and conspiracy with the officials/ employees of Electricity department. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.01.06 16:32:41 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 13/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny 3.6 It is further stated that meanwhile the Defendant received a false legal notice sent by an advocate on behalf of Plaintiff whereby alleging that the Plaintiff has allegedly become the owner of the suit property by purchasing the same in 2015. It has been further alleged in the said legal notice, the Defendant is a tenant in the suit premise at monthly rent of Rs. 4000/-. It has been further alleged in the said notice that the Defendant has not paid the rent of couple of months. It has been further alleged that the Defendant has started creating nuisance and disturbance for the residents of ground floor. That by way of the said legal notice the Plaintiff has called upon the Defendant to vacate the suit premise and also to handover the vacant possession of the entire suit property to the Plaintiff within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the legal notice. It was further call upon by the Plaintiff that the Defendant herein is liable to pay monthly rent for last two months i.e. Rs. 8000/- Rs. 4000/- per month and it was further alleged in the said notice that the Plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the Defendant. That thereafter the Plaintiff, in next 15 days, visited the suit premise 4 to 5 times alongwith two to three other persons and each times the Defendant and his family has been told to leave the suit premise as soon as possible. It is further submitted that the suit premise is not amenable to transfer and the Plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premise and the Plaintiff also cannot be the owner of the suit premise in any circumstances as the current owner of the suit premises is Govt. of India. That it is Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR Date:
PAGE 14/34 06.01.2026 AGARWAL 2026.01.06 16:32:51 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny submitted that the Plaintiff is neither the owner of the suit premise nor the landlord of the Defendant. It is further submitted that the Defendant, during his lifespan, has never paid any rent amount to any person including the Plaintiff/ Naresh, in respect of suit property. It is further submitted that the Defendant and his family are/ were using/ enjoying/ possessing the suit premise exclusively to the exclusion of every other person. That thereafter the plaintiff visited the suit premises many times and on every visit to the suit property threatened the family of the Defendant for dire consequences. The plaintiff on one occasion had also taken the picture/ photo of the defendant and his family members. That on the last visit to the suit premise the Plaintiff has threatened the wife of the Defendant by saying that if the suit property is not vacated then the Plaintiff will take the possession forcefully by using each and every trick. That thereafter it has also come to the knowledge of Defendant that the Plaintiff herein is trying to raise further dispute over the suit property on the basis of forged and fabricated chain of documents. It is submitted that the litigation mentioned in the para under reply were started by the present plaintiff in connivance with Nagender Kumar with the motive to grab the suit property. That by using the said compromised based order the plaintiff is now trying to convince this Hon'ble Court to get a favourable order.
3.7 It is further submitted that the plaintiff in 2015, after fabrication of some forged and false documents in respect of suit Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 15/34 06.01.2026 2026.01.06
16:33:00 +0530
CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
property, had filed, in connivance, a case against Nagender Kumar.
It is further submitted that the suit, which was filed by the present plaintiff against Nagender Kumar, was for recovery of alleged loan amount of Rs. 3.6 lakh. That the said suit was not maintainable as the present plaintiff by way of said suit had sought the relief of Recovery of Loan amount; of pending rent amount; of possession /of eviction of said Nagender Kumar. It is further submitted that the said suit was settled, in connivance, at the very initial stage even without filing of written statement. It is further submitted that the present plaintiff in the said suit has relinquished his claims of an amount of Rs.4.73 lakh (Rs.3.6 lakh allegedly given to Nagender Kumar as a Loan) and of rent amount of Rs. 1,13,000/- (arrears of rent of Rs 38,000/- + damages amount of Rs. 75,000) and in lieu, the said Nagender Kumar allegedly vacated the ground floor of the suit property. Hence all these facts are showing that the said suit filed by the present plaintiff against Nagender Kumar was filed in connivance with a pre plan to grab the present suit property. It is submitted that the defendant is not the tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property as the plaintiff has not produced, before this Hon'ble Court also, the allotment letter/ slip issued by the DDA in respect of suit property, in his name. It is further submitted that the electricity meter in the suit property was Installed in the name of the father of the defendant way back in 2007 (after the death of the grandmother of the defendant). It is submitted that the legal notice dated 06.09.2017 was false and was Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 16/34 06.01.2026 2026.01.06
16:33:10 +0530
CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
malafidely Issued by the plaintiff to grab the suit property. It is further submitted that all the story and contents of the said false legal notice was also false and fabricated. That it is submitted that after receiving of the said false notice the defendant immediately on 21.09.2017 filed a suit for injunction against the plaintiff herein which is still pending in the concerned court of Ld. Civil Judge and the next date of hearing is 20.12.2017. It is submitted that the defendant is/was never the tenant in the said property and was /is not under any liability/ obligation to pay any amount / charges to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the present suit is false and is based on fabricated and false documents to grab the suit property. That the all the other contents of the plaint are denied with the prayer to dismiss the suit.
REPLICATION:-
4. In the replication filed to WS, plaintiff denied all the averments of the WS. It is stated that the defendant has not enclosed any document in support of his claim of last 30 years or for any specific period. It is further stated that the defendant has turned dishonest and just to grab the property of the plaintiff the defendant has changed his parentage as on record he has admitted that one Pargat Singh in whose name there was an electricity connection was his 'Tayaji' whereas in the written statement he has claimed that said Pargat Pal Singh was his father. The defendant has claimed his right through one Pargat Singh who was son of Bachchan Kaur who were Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 PAGE 17/34 06.01.2026 16:33:17 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny residing in the suit property at one point of time, however, the defendant has failed to file any document connecting himself to said Pargat Singh. Moreover, Pargat Singh never claimed to be the owner of the suit property. That as per the documents enclosed by the defendant alongwith the written statement Bachchan Kaur was not having any son in the name of Kale then how Pargat Singh can be "Tayaji' of the defendant and when he is not the 'Tayaji how the defendant is related to family of Bachchan Kaur, what is the right of the defendant to associate himself with the family of Bachchan Kaur. It is further stated that the plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 2015 from Shri Naresh and he has all the previous chain. The possession was also transferred to the plaintiff. At that time the ground floor tenant and first floor tenant both of them agreed the landlordship of the plaintiff. All the other averments of the WS are denied.
ISSUES
5. Thereafter, pleadings were complete and the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 04.07.2018:-
Issue no.1:- Whether the suit is without cause of action? OPD Issue no.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of possession, as prayed for ? OPP Issue no.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of arrears of rent, as prayed for? OPP.Digitally signed
VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.01.06 16:33:27 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 18/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages/mesne profit, as prayed for ?OPP Issue no.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ?OPP Issue no.6:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ?OPP Issue no.7:- Relief.
Evidence of Parties:-
6. In plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. PW-1 relied on the following documents including Identity Proof, Document of Sale purchase of the property alongwith previous chain, including GPA, Agreement of Sale and Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Deed of Will all dt. 16.10.2015, electricity bill, site plan, Mediation Order dt. 18.07.2017, Police Complaint dt. 16.08.2017 and Office Copy of Legal Notice dt. 06.09.2017, postal receipt, proof of delivery as ExPW1/1 to ExPW1/8. Thereafter plaintiff has examined one Sh.
Harphool, HC in PS Khayal, Delhi(MHCR) and he brought the roznamcha in DD No. 42B dt. 16.08.2017 is exhibited as Ex.PW2/1. Thereafter witnesses have been cross-examined accordingly and then PE has been closed vod. 13.11.2024.
7. In defendant evidence, the defendant examined himself as DW1 (inadvertently written as DW3 on 04.11.2025) who Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 19/34 06.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 16:33:35 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny tendered his evidence by way of affidavit is exhibited as Ex. DW1/A. DW-1 relied on the following documents:- Ration Card of Bachan Kaur, grandmother of the deponent, Election I-Card of Pargat Singh, Copy of the complaint dt. 06.03.2008 to S.H.O, P.S. Tilak Nagar, in respect of meter theft, Copy of electricity bill dt. 24.09.2009 and copy of lat testing notice and copy of his aadhar card as Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/5 and thereafter defendant has been cross-examined accordingly and then DE has been closed vod. 04.11.2025.
FINDINGS
8 The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties have been heard at length and file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issues-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18.1 The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant, however, counsel for defendant failed to press the said issue.
Moreover, as discussed at length in the findings of issue no. 2, the plaintiff has clearly established the cause of action in his favor in the present suit. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is hereby decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Digitally
signed by
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
AGARWAL
KUMAR
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 PAGE 20/34 06.01.2026 16:33:46 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny ISSUE NO. 2 8.2 The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff only. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff has duly proved his ownership in the suit property by way of document Ex.PW1/2 including GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and Will executed in his favor by the previous owner and on the other hand, the defendant in his cross-examination as DW1 has not denied the ownership of the plaintiff and rather has expressed his ignorance about the purchase of property by the plaintiff from the previous owner namely Naresh @ Kalia. That defendant also expressed his ignorance about the purchase of said property by Naresh @ Kalia from previous owner namely Lakshmi w/o Nagender. That defendant duly admitted that previously one Ram Charan was the owner of the suit property, which is also the case of plaintiff. That said Ram Charan had sold the suit property to some other person and thereafter through a long chain, the plaintiff at last became the owner of the suit property. 8.2.1 It is further submitted that defendant has made contrary and false depositions before the court. That on one hand, he stated the name of his father as Kuldeep Singh as being his real father and on the other hand, he stated the name of his father as Pradeep Singh and again he also stated the name of his father as Pragat Lal Singh as being his adoptive father, whereas as per aadhar card filed by him i.e. Ex.DW1/5, the name of his father was Kuldeep Singh only and Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 21/34 06.01.2026 AGARWAL 2026.01.06 16:33:55 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny he had not filed any document to show if he was adopted by Sh. Pragat Pal Singh. It is submitted that the defendant concocted the false story of the fatherhood of Sh Pragat Pal Singh, as there was one electricity bill in the name of Sh. Pragat Pal Singh. It is further submitted that on the one hand, in his WS the defendant stated that her grandmother Smt Bachan Kaur had constructed the suit property and since then she was residing in the suit property with her family till her death on 16.12.2006, whereas in his cross-examination he stated that he was not aware as to where Bachan Kaur was residing before shifting to property in question as he was only 7 years of age at that time. It is further submitted that the defendant has also admitted in his cross-examination that there were other tenants of the plaintiff in the same property itself.
8.2.2 Accordingly, it has been argued that as plaintiff has proved his ownership in the suit property, which has remained undisputed on behalf of defendant and as the version of plaintiff with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties has also remained unchallenged and as on the other hand, the defendant failed to prove his version in any manner, the plaintiff has duly proved his case to seek the possession of the suit property from the defendant.
8.2.3 On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has failed to prove any relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties, as neither any rent agreement nor any rent receipt has been filed by the plaintiff. Again Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 PAGE 22/34 06.01.2026 16:34:04 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny that as reflected from the document Ex.PW2/1 bearing DD no. 42 B, the plaintiff has stated himself to be the owner of only ground floor. Again the document of ownership in favour of plaintiff are not genuine and on the contrary, the defendant had become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. 8.2.4 Heard. File perused. Before coming to the merits of the case of plaintiff, let me advert to the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant. Regarding the first contention, it is observed that there is no mandate in law that there has to be a rent agreement in writing to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, as oral tenancy can be certainly there and again there is no mandate in law for issuance of any rent receipt, when the matter is not covered under DRC Act. Moreover, it is not the case of the defendant that he had paid the rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had not issued any rent receipt and therefore, if rent was not being paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, no question arises from issuance of rent receipt by the plaintiff. Moreover, as per the case of plaintiff, defendant was already the tenant in the suit property when the plaintiff had purchased the same. Accordingly, first contention raised on behalf of defendant is not tenable. 8.2.5 Regarding the second contention with respect to some averments in the DD entry before police, it is observed that some statement recorded before the police cannot form the basis of ownership of a plaintiff in the suit property and it is certainly matter of appreciation of evidence in the present case itself. The statement Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 23/34 06.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 16:34:13 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny before the police would have been made under given circumstances or in some particular context, which is not the matter of concern before the present court and moreover no question was asked on behalf of defendant in this regard in the cross-examination of Plaintiff / PW1.
8.2.6 Regarding the third contention on behalf of defendant, it is observed that a part from making the bald averments to challenge the genuineness of the documents of the ownership in favour of plaintiff, the defendant has failed to lead any evidence and rather on the contrary, as rightly argued by ld. Counsel for plaintiff, the defendant / DW1 himself failed to deny the execution of said document in favour of plaintiff, when the defendant expressed his ignorance about the said documents and he further expressed his ignorance about the sale of the suit property by the admittedly previous owner namely Sh. Ram Charan. It is observed that the defendant / DW1 (inadvertently written as DW3 on 04.11.2025) specifically stated in his cross-examination that he could not tell that who was the owner of the suit property lastly and that he never raised any objection on purchasing of the suit property by the plaintiff and accordingly the defendant himself has duly admitted that he was well aware about the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff from the previous owner and accordingly the defendant has no right to question the genuineness of the said documents without any basis.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date:
AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 2026.01.06 16:34:29 PAGE 24/34 06.01.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny 8.2.7 Regarding the last contention raised on behalf of defendant, it is to observe that very fundamental ingredient of the concept of "adverse possession" is that the possession of the person claiming his ownership has to be adverse and hostile to the owner himself. In the present case, the defendant / DW1 himself was not aware about the owner of the suit property and therefore, the defendant cannot take the plea of ownership by way of adverse possession in any manner.
8.2.8 Accordingly, all the contentions raised on behalf of defendant do not hold any water. Now, let me advert to the merits of the case of the plaintiff. Regarding the ownership of the plaintiff in the suit property, it is observed that plaintiff has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/2, which include the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will dt. 16.10.2015 executed in his favor by the previous owner and has also place on record the copy of same kind of documents executed in the favour of the previous owner. All the said documents were placed on record after comparing the same with the original and no objection was raised on the exhibition of the said documents on behalf of defendant. Again no question was raised on behalf of defendant in the cross-examination of plaintiff / PW1 with respect to the execution of the said documents. Again, as discussed above, the defendant himself failed to depose anything contrary with respect to the execution of the said documents in favour of plaintiff, in his Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2026.01.06 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 16:34:37 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 25/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny cross-examination as DW1. Accordingly, the genuineness of the said documents is certainly not in question in any manner. 8.2.9 It is pertinent to mention here that the said documents not being the sale deed in terms of S 54 of TP Act do not convey the absolute title in favour of the plaintiff, however, they certainly provide the better title to the plaintiff than the defendant, who has no document in his favour to establish any right in the suit property. 8.2.10 It is further observed that on the one hand, the plaintiff has specifically stated in his evidence affidavit as PW1 that the defendant was the tenant in the suit property at the monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month, when he had purchased the same from the previous owner, on the other hand, the defendant failed to challenge the said version of the plaintiff, as no questions were asked in this regard in the cross-examination of plaintiff /PW1. The version of plaintiff / PW1 is further corroborated from the fact that defendant duly admitted in his cross-examination as DW1 that there was the tenant of the plaintiff at the ground floor of the suit property and that suit property has only one address. Now, as per the document Ex.PW1/2, the plaintiff had purchased the entire property and it was not only with respect to the First Floor and therefore, there could not be any eventuality that despite being the owner of the entire property, the plaintiff was the landlord of the tenant at the ground floor but not of the defendant, who was residing at the first floor. It is observed that on the one hand the plaintiff has proved his version to the standard of preponderance of probabilities, whereas on the Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 2026.01.06 16:34:47 +0530 PAGE 26/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny other hand the defendant has completely failed to prove his version of the WS in any manner. The defendant completely failed to prove his ownership in the suit property or ownership of the Government of India, as pleaded in the WS and rather on the contrary, the version of the defendant has remained full of contradictions for several reasons. At the very first, the defendant failed to explain the name of his father being Kuldeep Singh or Pradeep Singh or Sh. Pragat Pal Singh. The defendant failed to place on record any document to establish that Kuldeep Singh and Pradeep Singh were the same persons and again failed to place on record any document to show how and when he was adopted by Sh. Pragat Pal Singh. He failed to place on record any document or even to lead any evidence to establish that he was being taken care of by Smt Bachan Kaur and that he was living in the suit property alongwith Smt Bachan Kaur. Again the falsity of the defendant is further reflected from the fact that in para (r) of the WS, the defendant stated that he has received a legal notice from the counsel of plaintiff whereas in his cross-examination as DW1, he denied about the receipt of said notice.
8.2.11 It is further observed that even after having received the said legal notice, vide which the tenancy of the defendant was terminated, defendant did not give any reply to the said notice, which further leads to the adverse inference to be drawn against the defendant himself. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the plaintiff has duly proved his Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL 2026.01.06 16:34:56 PAGE 27/34 06.01.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny ownership as well as the relationship of the landlord and tenant between both the parties.
8.2.12 Again as the said relationship was duly terminated vide legal notice Ex.PW1/6, which was served on the defendant, as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 and as also admitted by the defendant in his WS, the defendant became unauthorized occupant in the suit property from the date of service of the legal notice i.e. 08.09.2017, as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/8. Even otherwise, mere filing of the suit amounts to termination of tenancy. In this regard reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Nopani Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) 2 SCC 728. Accordingly, plaintiff is duly entitled for possession of the suit property from the defendant.
Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 38.3 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As per the prayer (iv) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought the recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per mo0nth for period of three month from July 2017 to September, 2017. As discussed in the findings of issue no. 2, the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties has been duly established, however, the plaintiff failed to prove if the rate of rent was Rs. 12,000/- per month only and accordingly in the absence of evidence, Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL PAGE 28/34 06.01.2026 2026.01.06 16:35:04 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny relief of recovery of arrears of rent cannot be granted to the plaintiff and therefore, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 4 :-
8.4 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only.
As per the prayer (v) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought the recovery of mesne profit / damages at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month for the period from the date of filing of the suit till the date of vacation of the suit property by the defendant. 8.4.1 It is observed that as defined under Section 2 (12) of CPC 'mesne profits' means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom. In the present case, the defendant has been in wrongful possession of the suit property after termination of his tenancy. As discussed above the tenancy of the defendant was terminated after service of the legal notice on 08.09.2017 and therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled for relief of mesne profits as claimed by the plaintiff at last from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.10.2017.
8.4.2 Regarding the amount of mesne profits, it is to observe that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the amount of rent for various properties in and around Delhi have been rising staggeringly. In this regard, I also seek reliance from the authority of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Vinod Khanna & Ors. vs. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 16:35:12 +0530 PAGE 29/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny Bakshi Sachdev (deceased) through LRs & Ors." AIR 1996 (Delhi) 32, wherein it was observed that the judicial notice can be taken of the fact about increase of rents in the premises in and around Delhi, which is a city of growing importance being the capital of the country, which is a matter of public history. Again, in case of "Sh. M.R. Sahni vs. Mrs. Doris Randhawa" 2008 (104) DRJ 246, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while reiterating the steep increase in the rentals in Delhi, again emphasized that in relation to determination of mesne profits, there is always some element of guess work.
8.4.3 Accordingly, in view of this legal settled position, let me advert to appreciation of the location of the property in question. The suit premises is situated in DDA Colony, Khyala Village, New Delhi and admittedly the defendant was in possession of the entire first floor of the said property. The plaintiff has claimed the damages / mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month and same was deposed by the plaintiff in his evidence affidavit, however, no question was raised in the cross-examination of plaintiff / PW1 in this regard, and accordingly the said version of plaintiff has remained unchallenged. However, considering the locality and the area of the property in possession of the defendant, I am not inclined to grant to the relief of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month and I am of the view that suit premises could easily fetch the amount of Rs.10,000/- as rental value to the plaintiff and therefore, Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL 2026.01.06 Date:
PAGE 30/3416:35:21 +0530 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny plaintiff is held entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.10.2017 till date of delivery of possession by the defendant.
Issue no. 4 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 58.5 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As discussed in the findings of issue no. 2, on the one hand the plaintiff has established his title in the suit property much better than the defendant and on the other hand defendant has failed to prove any right in the suit property. Accordingly, the defendant has or his employees, agents, etc. have not right to part away the possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff or to create any third party interest in the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff is held entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for.
Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 68.6 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As per prayer (iii) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay consumption charges (of Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 PAGE 31/34 06.01.2026 16:35:29 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny the electricity and water) to the concerned department as per the consumption by the defendant.
8.6.1 As observed in the findings of issue no. 2, it is an admitted position that defendant is in the possession of the suit property and again the defendant himself has placed on record copy of some electricity bills of the year 2017 pertaining to suit property, though not proved, however, the defendant has not placed on record any document to establish if he was paying the electricity and water consumption charges to the concerned department on regular basis.
When the defendant himself was in possession of the suit property and was enjoying the electricity and water amenities, the defendant himself is under mandate to pay the said consumption charges to the concerned department. Accordingly, defendant is hereby directed to pay the said due charges, if any to the concerned department before handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Issue no. 6 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 7:- RELIEF 8.7 In view of above findings of issue no. 2 to 6, the plaintiff is granted following reliefs:-
(I) The plaintiff is held entitled for possession of the suit property from the defendant and defendant is directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. First Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL 2026.01.06 16:35:37 PAGE 32/34 06.01.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny Floor, E-227 DDA Colony, Khayala, New Delhi to the plaintiff within one month from today.
(II) The plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.10.2017 till date of delivery of possession by the defendant and defendant is directed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff within one month from date of decree.
(III) The plaintiff is held entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for and accordingly, the defendant or his employees, agents, etc. are hereby permanently restrained to part away the possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff or to create any third party interest in the suit property. (IV) The plaintiff is held entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed for and accordingly, defendant is hereby directed to pay the due electricity and water charges, if any to the concerned department before the date of handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Conclusion
9. In view of findings of issue no. 2 to 7, suit is hereby decreed with costs. Suit is hereby decreed, however, the plaintiff is directed to file the court fees payable for aggregate amount of mesne profits, calculated till date as per Sec. 11 of Court Fees Act within one month from today.
Digitally signed by VIVEKVIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 16:35:52 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 33/34 06.01.2026 CS SCJ 1396/2017 Sh Gajender Yadav Vs. Sh Sunny
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and it is made clear that if court fees is not filed in this regard within the given time, the decree sheet be prepared for all the reliefs except the relief of mesne profits.
11. In case of failure by the defendant, plaintiff is at liberty to approach the court for satisfaction of decree. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.01.06 AGARWAL 16:36:02 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/06.01.2026 (Announced in open court On 06.1.2026).
Note: This order contains 34 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.01.06 AGARWAL 16:36:11 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/06.01.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 34/34 06.01.2026