Delhi District Court
Mr Anudeep Gupta vs Praveen Kumar on 30 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH.AJAY GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-05
TIS HAZARI COURTS, WEST: DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-005677-2014
Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2019
1. Sh. Anudeep Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Deepak Gupta
2. Smt. Vanita Gupta
W/o Late Sh. Deepak Gupta
Both Resident Of
S-51-B, Panchsheel Park
New Delhi-110092
.....PLAINTIFF
Versus
Shri Praveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar
At: PP-6, Ground Floor, Gali no. 10
Anand Parbhat Industrial Area
New Delhi-110005
.....DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of Case : 03.07.2024
Date of Arguments : 13.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 30.08.2025
JUDGMENT
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and future mesne profits.
Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 1 of 362. The plaintiff has inter-alia averred in the plaint that:-
(i) that plaintiff no.2 (P-2 in short) is the absolute owner of premises bearing no. PP-6, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, Gali no. 10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'the property' in question) and plaintiff no.1 (P-1 in short) is the son of Plaintiff no.2 and both the plaintiffs are landlords qua the property i.e. a hall measuring 18.3'x37.9' situated at the ground floor of the aforesaid property (hereinafter referred as tenanted/suit premises). Sh. Deepak Gupta, the deceased father of P-1 and husband of P-2 had taken the property in question from Ramjas Foundation on licence basis vide a licence deed which was executed in the year 1983.
(ii) that in the year 2006, plaintiffs had let out the suit property to the defendant for a period of 11 months vide a rent agreement dated 22.11.2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.13,000/-. Vide the said rent agreement, defendant was given an option to have the lease renewed twice for 11 months with 5% increase in rent. Defendant had deposited the interest free security amount of Rs.65,000/- which was to be refunded at the time of vacating the suit property by the defendant and after adjustment of Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 2 of 36 arrears of rent, electricity charges and other outstanding charges. Defendant accepted the plaintiffs as his landlord as he initially paid rent to P-1 but later on, on the request of plaintiff, defendant started paying the rent to the P-2.
(iii) that since beginning, defendant was irregular in payment of rent, however, he used to assure the plaintiff of remitting the entire arrears of rent.
Around the period of expiry of lease, defendant expressed his willingness to continue to stay in the tenanted premises and requested the plaintiff to increase the rent by 10% after every two years instead of agreed 5% p.a every year, thus, his request was accepted and tenancy was converted into month to month tenancy. The defendant used to delay the payment of rent and as per account books maintained by the plaintiff the defendant is in huge arrears of rent. Initially, the defendant was let out the suit property @ Rs.13,000/- p.m and as per oral agreement, w.e.f December 2008, the rent was increased by 10% and enhanced to Rs, 14,300/-. Accordingly, w.e.f Nov. 2010, it was enhanced to Rs.15,730/- and thereafter, w.e.f Nov. 2012, it was enhanced to Rs.17,303/- and likewise rent was increased by 10% at the interval of every two year and latest increased rent is Rs.27,864/- per month. Since the defendant has not paid the rent which is Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 3 of 36 already became due, therefore, defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.18,55,289/- till March 2024. Plaintiffs had shared the running ledger statement of account with the defendant which was cross verified by him and he affirmed the correctness of the same.
(iv) that defendant had been in arrears of rent before the start of Covid 19 pandemic, however, defendant started further delaying the monthly rent on the pretext of Covid 19 pandemic. Defendant used to avoid payment of rent, though, he had resumed his business activities after the Covid restrictions were lifted. Though defendant is in arrears of rent but at the time of every increase in 10% rent, respondent used to assure the plaintiff that he shall pay the enhanced rent. The rent was lastly enhanced in Nov. 2022 which was never denied by the defendant.
(v) that the defendant has failed to pay the afore mentioned arrears of rent despite request thus, vide legal notice dated 08.11.2021, the tenancy of defendant was terminated and vide this notice, defendant was asked to hand over the possession of the suit premises and also for payment of the outstanding amount of arrears of rent. The legal notice was duly served upon the defendant, however, defendant neither handed over the possession of suit property nor paid the arrears of rent.
Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 4 of 36(vi) that since the plaintiff were not interested in retaining the defendant as their tenant, therefore, they sought permission from the competent authority for initiating the eviction proceedings against the defendant and vide order dated 22.08.2023, the competent authority allowed the plaintiff to institute a suit against the defendant for his eviction.
(vii) Thus, on the basis of aforesaid averments, plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession of the suit property as well as recovery of arrears of rent/use and occupation charges/damages of Rs.18,55,289/- alongwith 18% pandentelite and future interest on the aforesaid outstanding amount alongwith cost of the suit. Though in the caption of the plaint, plaintiffs have mentioned that they have also sought future mesne profits, however, no such prayer has been made by the plaintiff in the plaint.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
3. Defendant filed his Written Statement and opposed the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of following averments:-
Preliminary Objections
(i) Defendant has denied the claim of plaintiff in toto and defendant has endeavoured to claim himself to be the owner of the suit property. It is Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 5 of 36 stated by the defendant that he has purchased the suit property from Late Sh. Deepak Gupta at the prevailing market rate and it was agreed that the sale consideration is to be transferred in the bank account of P-1 on monthly basis. After demise of Sh. Deepak Gupta, defendant came to know that Ramjas Foundation is the original owner of the property and they hold dominion over the suit property after demise of Sh. Deepak Gupta who was the licencee. It is stated that defendant had transferred the money to the deceased as earnest money of the suit property who in order to gain undue advantage, misled the defendant and promised to execute the sale agreement, however, he kept on delaying the same.
(ii) It stated that P-2 was never the owner of the property in question as alleged in the rent agreement. After demise of Sh. Deepak Gupta, the dominion over the property in question went back to Ramjas Foundation and after his demise, plaintiffs cannot claim rent qua the suit property.
(iii) Defendant has contended that no rent agreement was ever executed between the parties and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rent deed filed by the plaintiff is a forged document and this document is Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 6 of 36 also not a valid document and not capable of enforcement through court of law.
Reply on Merits
(iv) While replying on merits, it is stated that plaintiffs cannot become landlord of the property by way inheritance as they themselves have claimed that Sh. Deepak Gupta was a licencee and as per law, same is not transferrable, therefore, same cannot be inherited by them by way of succession.
It is also stated that deceased Sh. Deepak Gupta was barred from creating any interest in favour of anyone as licence was personally given to him which has now expired upon his demise. Thus, defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff on the ground of absence of legal relationship of landlord and tenant and also on the ground that plaintiffs have no locus standi qua the property in question.
(v) while replying on merits, defendant has reiterated the averments made in the preliminary objections. Defendant has denied the right of the plaintiffs qua each relief claimed by them in the present suit.
(vi) On the basis of the aforementioned averments, the defendant has sought dismissal of the present suit.
Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 7 of 364. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed wherein plaintiffs have reiterated and re-affirmed the claim made in the plaint. In order to show that defendant is the tenant of plaintiff and plaintiff used to demand the due rent, plaintiff has placed on record the whatsapp chat that took place between the P-2 and defendant.
5. After completion of pleadings, on the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 16.01.2025:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the defendant had purchased the suit property from Sh. Deepak Gupta (plaintiff no.2), if so, its effect? OPD
2. Whether the rent deed dated 22.11.2006 is a forged and fabricated document? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages and future mesne profits as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. on the outstanding arrears amount? OPP
5. Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 8 of 36 6.0 In order to prove their claim both the plaintiffs have led their evidence. Plaintiff no.1 has been examined as PW1. PW1 has filed his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) on the similar lines of the averments made in the plaint. Besides his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), PW1 has brought on record the following documents in his evidence:-
(a) Copy of Licence Deed as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
(b) Photocopies of Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly.) (OSR)
(c) Site plan of suit property as Ex.PW1/3.
(d) Original rent agreement as Ex.PW1/4.
(e) Ledger account statement as Ex.PW1/5. (Colly.)
(f) Copy of legal notice as Ex.PW1/6 (colly.).
(g) Tracking report of consignment by Indiapost as Ex.PW1/7.
(h) Copy of receipt of DTDC courier and tracking report as Ex.PW1/8 (colly.).
(i) Certified copy of orders u/s 19 of Slum Areas Act as Ex.PW1/9.
(j) Copy of reply of respondent to the petition under Slums Act before Competent Authority as Ex.PW1/10.
(k) Copy of NSR as Ex.PW1/11.
(l) Rejoinder alongwith documents as Ex.PW1/12 (Colly.
(m) Affidavit u/s 63 BSA as Ex.PW1/13.Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 9 of 36
6.1 Smt. Vanita Gupta, plaintiff no.2 examined herself as PW2. PW2 has also filed her affidavit (Ex.PW2/A) on the similar lines of the averments of the plaint. PW2 has also relied upon the afore mentioned documents brought on record by PW1. Besides, the aforesaid documents, she brought on record the following documents.
(a) Photocopies of aadhar card as Ex.PW2/1 (Colly.) (OSR)
(b) Affidavit u/s 63 of BSA as Ex.PW2/2.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 6.2 In his defence evidence, defendant has examined four witnesses. He examined himself as DW1 and his brother as DW2. In order to prove certain payments made by him to the plaintiffs, he examined DW3 and DW4 (the concerned bank officers) who brought on record the bank account statements of defendant. In his affidavit Ex.DW1/A, defendant has re-iterated and re-affirmed the defence taken by him in his written statement.
6.3 Defendant examined his brother Sh. Gulshan Kumar as DW2. He has also deposed on the similar lines of the deposition of DW1.
Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 10 of 366.4 DW3 Sh. Gagan Singh Gwal has produced the summoned record i.e. statement of account of bank account no. 0635000100339338 of defendant as Ex.DW3/1.
6.5 DW4 Sh. Sushil Kumar Mishra is the Branch Manager of SBI and he produced the summoned record i.e. statement of account of another bank account of defendant as account no. 30617688823 (Ex.DW4/1). He also brought on record the account opening form as Ex.DW4/2 (12 pages colly.), Form DA1 as Ex.DW4/2 and certificate u/s 2A (a) of Bankers Books Evidence Act qua the statement of account as Ex.DW4/3. Copy of ID card of DW4 is Ex.DW4/4. After examining these witnesses, DE was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments.
7.0 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs as well as Ld. Counsel for the defendant and perused the record carefully. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Mangal Bhikaji Nagpase Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 59.
(ii) Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1187.
(iii) Apollo Zipper India Ltd. Vs. W.Newman and Company Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 744.
(iv) Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 11 of 36
(v) Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B.Gunashekar & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793.
(vi) State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Vs. D. Raghukul Pershad (dead) by LRs & Others, (2012) 8 SCC 584.
(vii) Kamaljit Singh Vs. Sarabjit Singh, (2014) 16 SCC
472.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following case law:-
(i) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853.
(ii) Paramount Publicity Vs. MCD, 1995 I AD (Delhi)
91.
(iii) Rohit Dhawan Vs. G.K. Malhotra, AIR 2002 Delhi
151.
(iv) Columbia Sportwear Company Vs. Harish Footwear, CS(COMM) 1611/2016.
(v) M/s Seemax Construction Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1992 Delhi 197
(vi) Micolube India Ltd. Vs. Maggon Auto Centre & Anr, MIPR 2008(1) 294
(vii) Bank of India Vs. Avinash D Mandivikar & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 3395.
(viii) Sunder Lal Vs. Sita Bali & Anr, AIR 2003 P&H
277.
(ix) K.K. Verma and Anr Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1954 BOM 358 Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 12 of 36
(x) Ishwar Dass Vs. Parkash Chand & Others, RSA no. 433 of 2014 (O&M)
(xi) Chinnan & Ors Vs. Ranjithammal, AIR 1931 Madras
216. My issues wise finding is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1, 2 & 31. Whether the defendant had purchased the suit property from Sh. Deepak Gupta (plaintiff no.2), if so, its effect? OPD
2. Whether the rent deed dated 22.11.2006 is a forged and fabricated document? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages and future mesne profits as prayed for? OPP 8.0 All these three issues are interconnected, therefore, all these issues are taken up together for disposal.
The defendant has claimed that he is occupying the suit premises in the capacity of a purchaser of the same and therefore, he claimed that plaintiffs have no right to seek possession of the suit premises from him. Besides, defendant has also assailed the locus of the plaintiffs qua the suit property. On the other hand, plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be the owners/landlords of the property bearing no. PP-6, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor in Gali no.10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi a Hall Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 13 of 36 situated on the ground floor of which comprises the tenanted property. Thus, the onus to prove that the suit property has been purchased by him from deceased Sh. Deepak Gupta (the predecessor in interest of plaintiffs) was on the defendant while in order to reclaim the possession of suit property and for the recovery sought qua arrears of rent and damages/use and occupation charges, plaintiffs were required to bring on record the following requisites:-
(i) that plaintiffs are the landlord,
ii) that rent of the suit property is above Rs.3500/- p.m.,
iii) that tenancy of defendant has been terminated vide legal notice Ex.PW1/6.
8.1 The onus to prove issue no.1 was on defendant and in order to prove the same defendant examined himself as DW1 and his brother as DW2. Defendant has claimed that he had purchased the suit property at the prevailing market rate from Late Sh. Deepak Gupta and it was agreed between him and the deceased that the sale consideration is to be transferred into the bank account of P-1 on monthly basis and as per promise, defendant regularly transferred the amount, however, after sudden demise of Sh. Deepak Gupta, he came to know that M/s Ramjas Foundation is the original owner of the suit property and the deceased was their licencee. In order to prove his aforesaid claims, the defendant was required to specify all the relevant particulars of the aforesaid transactions Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 14 of 36 besides, placing on record all the relevant documents, though, it is also an altogether different aspect that even after proving the same whether he would be still entitled to retain the possession of the suit property. It is clear from the record that besides his oral assertions and simple deposition, defendant has not placed on record any document related to the said sale purchase transaction. Furthermore, defendant has neither specified as to when did he purchase the suit property from the deceased and what was the sale consideration and as to how and in what manner sale consideration was paid by him nor he has filed any document related to the same. Though, the defendant has not specified the relevant particulars of the said transaction, however, during cross examination when defendant (DW1) was asked as to whether he had paid any amount to the deceased for purchasing the suit property, the defendant stated that he had paid a cash amount of Rs.5.00 Lac to the deceased. Thus, here for the first time, defendant endeavoured to claim that he had paid sale consideration of Rs.5.00 Lac to the deceased, however, it is clear that neither he mentioned this fact in his written statement nor in his affidavit. Moreover, he has also not brought on record any document to establish the aforesaid sale purchase transaction. Furthermore, in case, the defendant would have paid the sale consideration during the life time of deceased then defendant would have also got the relevant documents executed in his favour and in case, deceased had not executed the same, defendant would have initiated appropriated legal proceedings Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 15 of 36 against his Legal Heirs for having the suit property transferred in his name, however, it is clear that defendant never initiated any proceedings during last 20 years as admittedly, Sh. Deepak Gupta had passed away in the year 2005.
8.2 Furthermore, the aforesaid statement of defendant also belies his main defence that as per agreement, he transferred the sale consideration into the bank account of P-1 on monthly basis. In case, he had already paid the sale consideration to the deceased then their was no reason for him to pay any further amount to his legal heirs (plaintiffs).
8.3 According to plaintiffs, after they had terminated tenancy of defendant, in order to seek possession of arrears of rent etc., they were required to obtain permission from competent Slum Authority, accordingly, they filed the requisite petition before the said authority and in response to their petition, the defendant filed his reply. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that defendant has taken a contradictory defence in the present proceedings to what he had stated in his reply filed by him before the competent authority. PW1 has brought on record the aforesaid reply as Ex.PW1/10. The defendant, in his affidavit of admission denial of documents, has denied his reply, however, during cross examination, defendant has admitted that said reply was submitted on his behalf before the competent authority and he also admitted his signatures over this reply but he endeavoured to claim that he Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 16 of 36 is not aware about the contents of the same as he was under
depression due to demise of his mother who had passed away in December 2021. It is clear from Ex.PW1/10 that it bears his signatures. This reply was supported by his affidavit. Besides, it is also clear that he had filed his evidence affidavit alongwith the same. Defendant has not brought on record any document to show that he ever withdraw the statement made by him through his reply and evidence affidavit. Thus, under these circumstances, it is to be assumed that the said reply was voluntarily submitted by the defendant before the Competent Authority, Slum Areas. Furthermore, it is also admitted position of fact that the Competent Authority had allowed the petition of the plaintiff and permitted them to initiate the eviction proceedings against the defendant. While grating permission, Ld. Competent Authority has discussed the status of the defendant in the suit property after considering his entire reply and it has been observed by the Ld.Competent Authority that the defendant had entered into the suit property through the aforesaid rent agreement (Ex.PW1/4) and there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The relevant paras of the order of competent authority are relevant for the controversy in hand and thus, the same are reproduced as under:-
"9. As far as first question regarding the prima facie relation of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, then, in this regard, copy of rent deed dated 12.11.2006 executed between petitioner no. 1 and respondent has been placed on record by petitioner. Though the respondent has vaguely Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 17 of 36 disputed the said rent deed dated 12.11.2006, firstly, by stating that rent deed with the petitioner is a forged document and then by stating that the said rent deed is not a valid document & is not an agreement capable of enforcement through court of law, but the respondent has nowhere specified the reason as to why he is claiming the said rent deed as a forged and further, it is also not the case of the respondent that the said document has been declared as null or void document by any competent forum. Therefore, the respondent has not specifically denied the execution of rent deed dated 12.11.2006, rather, he has impliedly admitted the execution of the same by raising an objection that petitioner no. 1 was not competent to enter the said rent deed with the respondent, as the same was in violation of terms of license granted to his father, as the license exclusively belonged to deceased father namely Mr. Deepak Gupta of petitioner, who was not competent to part with possession of property in question which is presently in possession of respondent. In view of this authority, when the execution of rent deed dated 12.11.2006 between the parties has been impliedly admitted and prima facie got proved, then the respondent is stopped from denying the title of the petitioners at the inception of tenancy and this authority is not concerned with the issue as to whether the property could have passed through inheritance to the petitioner from initial licensee Mr. Deepak Gupta (i.e. father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2) or whether the execution of rent deed was in violation to the terms of license deed or not. Further, even the copy of license deed executed in the year 1983 between Mr. Deepak Gupta (i.e. father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2) and Ramjas foundation, has also been placed on record by the petitioners and in the said license deed, it is clearly indicated that the licensee shall be deemed to include his heirs, assigns and representatives.
Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 18 of 3610. Moreover, the respondent has also failed to state as to how he has come into the possession of the premises in question and by whom he was inducted in the premises and in which capacity he is possessing the premises in question at present, therefore, merely making bald denial about landlord and tenant relationship by disputing the ownership/landlordship of petitioners or by stating that the rent deed placed on record by petitioner is a forged document or the said rent deed is unenforceable in laws, is not of any help to the case of respondent.
12. In view of aforesaid facts on record, for the purpose of present enquiry, it can be said that the relationship of landlord and tenant, prima facie gets established between the parties.
8.4 The Ld.Competent Authority had passed the aforesaid order on 22.08.2023 and it is admitted position of fact that defendant neither withdrew the statement made by him through the said reply nor assailed the aforesaid order wherein the aforesaid observations have been made.
8.5 It is further clear from the contents of the reply of defendant Ex.PW1/10 that before Ld.Competent Authority, defendant did not take any defence at all qua his status in the suit property and defendant simply denied the claim of the plaintiffs raised by them regarding relationship of landlord/tenant as well as non payment of rent and termination of his tenancy. It is also clear that defendant did not take a stand in those proceedings that he has already purchased the suit property and he is occupying the same in the capacity of a Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 19 of 36 purchaser rather, here defendant only endeavoured to impliedly deny the right of the plaintiffs to execute the rent deed in respect to the suit property. In case, defendant would have actually purchased the suit property and would be retaining the same in the capacity of a purchaser then at the first instance itself, defendant would have taken the similar defence in the aforesaid proceedings also. Thus, it is clear that the defence taken by the defendant in the present proceeding regarding sale purchase transactions is only an afterthought and there is no substance in the same.
8.6 In view of these discussions, it is clear that defendant has failed to establish his aforesaid status in the suit property. Thus, even for this reason the claim of the plaintiffs that defendant entered into a suit property in the capacity of their tenant is to be assumed to be correct as either defendant could be occupying the suit property in his independent capacity or could have been inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs as no other claim has been made by either of the parties in this regard.
8.7 Plaintiffs have claimed that defendant is their tenant and they had inducted him in the suit property through the rent deed Ex.PW1/4. Defendant has claimed that rent deed is a forged and fabricated document. Defendant has also claimed that his signatures on the rent deed are forged and fabricated, however, it is clear that besides his signature, each Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 20 of 36 page of rent deed also contains his thumb impression and it is clear that defendant is completely silent about the same. Furthermore, defendant has not led any evidence to prove the alleged forgery of his signatures. Thus, under these circumstances, it is to be assumed that rent deed contains the original signatures and thumb impression of the defendant. In order to further establish that defendant is their tenant, plaintiff has brought on record the whatsapp chat that took place between Plaintiff no.2 and defendant. During cross examination, defendant (DW1) admitted the WhatsApp Chat Ex.DW1/P1 and Ex.DW1/P2. The said whatsapp chat pertains to the period w.e.f January 2019 to December 2021. It is clear from perusal of the whatsapp chat which is of around two years period that plaintiff no.2 was time and again requesting the defendant to deposit the due rent and in response to the said demand, defendant never claimed that he is the purchaser/owner of the premises in question (tenanted premises) and in response to the demand of rent, he used to either say that he has already deposited the rent or used to seek time to deposit the same which further proves that defendant is the tenant in the suit property that is why P-2 was regularly demanding the due rent from the defendant. Some of the relevant portion of the aforesaid whatsapp chat is relevant, thus, same is being reproduced as under:-
Plaintiff Defendant May 13, 2020 Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 21 of 36 Please deposit the rent for April and May 2020 I need money please deposit the rent Hello Madam Madam abhi payments nahi aa rahi na factory khul rahi hai abhi nahi ho payega agey jaise b koi update ayegi mein aapko inform kardunga July 8,2020 Please deposit the rent July 10, 2020 Pl deposit the rent At least one months Aug 26, 2020 What happened about the rent Oct 4, 2020 Please deposit the rent asap OK Oct 5 2020 Did not receive the rent still please deposit otherwise I will have to disconnect the electricity Oct 13,2020 Please deposit the rent otherwise I will have to disconnect the electricity Nov 7, 2020 Please deposit the rent Nov. 17, 2020 What happened about the rent pl deposit please transfer Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 22 of 36 online Jan. 11, 2021 Pl deposit 25000 asap Jan 16, 2021 What happened??? Madam check dal to diya Send the receipt Jitender ko bhej de Feb 10, 2021 Cheque not cleared yet Mere account se detect ho gaye hai Feb.11, 2021 Not come still the payment Check April 11, 2021 Deposit the money April 22, 2021 Pl deposit the money Apr 28, 2021 Pl deposit money as we all are sick I also covid-19 positive June 23, 2021 Pl deposit the rent I need money asap July 12, 2021 Deposit the rent Madam abhi 4 din pahle hai Jinendra kho diya hai Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 23 of 36 How much 10000? balance? Yes De dunga main aapko Paytm? Abhi payment nahin hai mada abhi Aate hi main dunga sabse pahle aap hi ko Jay Guru ji July 22, 2021 Pl deposit the rent 8.8 Plaintiffs have also claimed that they are
maintaining proper record of the amount paid by defendant towards rent and in this regard they have brought on record the relevant statement of account with effect from the financial year 2006-07 to 2023-24. During his cross examination, defendant has admitted the correctness of the said statement of account. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.24,68,022/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff during the aforesaid period but defendant claimed that he has not paid the said amount to the plaintiff towards rent but paid towards the installments of purchase of suit property. As already discussed, defendant has completely failed to establish his this particular defence. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that when defendant had already paid the sale consideration of Rs.5.00 Lac to the deceased himself then why after demise, he Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 24 of 36 would further pay any amount on this account to his legal heirs. Furthermore, defendant would also not pay about five times of the sale consideration than agreed. It is clear from the rent deed that the initial rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.13,000/- and as per page no. 49 of the statement of account (Ex.PW1/5) also the similar rent was regularly remitted by the defendant till April 2007. Thus, it is clear that the said amount was being paid by the defendant towards the rent only. In order to prove the said payment, defendant also brought on record the statement of his relevant bank accounts through PW3 and PW4. In view of the aforesaid discussions, these statements of account are of no benefit to the defence of the defendant as far as his defence of purchase of the suit property by him is concerned and these statements are only relevant to assess the correctness of the claim of outstanding amount of rent and damages made by plaintiff.
8.9 As per plaintiff, since the defendant did not clear the outstanding rent, therefore, vide legal notice Ex.PW1/6 plaintiff terminated the tenancy which was duly served upon the defendant vide PODs Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8. Defendant has denied the service of the legal notice, however, the service of the same was not disputed during the cross examination of both the PWs (plaintiffs). Furthermore, defendant has simply denied the service, however, defendant has not denied the correctness of the address upon which the legal notice was sent to the defendant. It is clear from the Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 25 of 36 record that defendant has himself mentioned the similar address in his affidavit filed alongwith the WS. Thus, in view of the provisions of section 27 of General Clauses Act, the legal notice should be assumed to have been duly served upon the defendant as the defendant has not led any evidence to rebut this presumption. Thus, under these circumstances, it is clear that before filing the petition before the Competent Authority, the aforesaid legal notice was issued to the defendant through which the plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy of the defendant and it is clear that in the said notice also, plaintiffs have made the similar assertions regarding the terms of tenancy and it is clear that despite service of the legal notice defendant did not rebut the claim of the plaintiff by sending a proper reply, therefore, in view of the settled law and especially keeping in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, an adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant that he did not send reply to the legal notice as plaintiffs had mentioned the correct factual position regarding creation of the tenancy and also the status of the defendant in the suit property.
8.10 Plaintiffs have brought on record the rent deed executed between the parties as Ex.PW1/4 and this document is a crucial document in regard to the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Though, the rent deed is unregistered, however, since the lease deed was only for a period of 11 months, therefore, in view of the settled law, Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 26 of 36 same can be taken into consideration and in this regard this court is supported the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court reported as Karan Dem Vs. Jyoti Gandhi & Ors. (MANU/DE/2682/2021). The relevant para of the said Judgement is as under:-
15. The above para-wise reply to the legal notice, clearly shows that the relationship of landlord-tenant is admitted by the Defendant. Further, the rent Agreement being only for a period of 11 months, did not require registration in law. The Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Vs. Zarif Ahmed and ors.
MANU/SC/1121/1997 has settled the said position of law and held:
"7. The question, therefore, that arises is:
whether a lease of immovable property from month to month or for 11 months is a compulsorily registerable document, though it was reduced to writing as an instrument defined under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act? A conjoint reading of the q first part of Section 107 read with Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act as extracted hereinbefore, does indicate that a lease of immovable property from year to year, on for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent should be made only by a registered instrument and all other instruments, thought reduced to writing and possession is delivered thereunder, are not compulsorily registerable instruments.
8.Section 49 of the Registration Act prohibits receiving in evidence certain types of documents. It reads as under:
No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to be registered shall
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 27 of 36
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power;
unless it has been registered:
9. The proviso is not applicable to the facts in this case and, therefore, it is not necessary to look into the exceptions engrafted vis-a-vis receipt of a documents comprising of three circumstances mentioned therein, namely, unregistered document used for enforcement of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act or used as an evidence or part performance of the contract under Section 53-A of the TP Act or using evidence for collateral transactions.The combined effect of all the provisions is that an unregistered lease deed executed from month to months, for a period not exceeding 11 months, though reduced to writing and possession is delivered thereunder to a tenant, is not a compulsorily registerable instrument and, therefore, the prohibition contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act is inapplicable. Therefore, the document is admissible in evidence to consider the effect of the immovable property contained therein or to receive as an evidence of any transaction vis-a-vis such property."
8.11 In view of these discussions, it is held that plaintiffs have proved through their positive evidence that vide rent deed Ex.PW1/4 defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property w.e.f 01.12.2006 at the monthly rent of Rs.13,000/-. Thus, it is held that defendant is a tenant in the suit property and he was inducted as tenant in the suit property by plaintiff no.1 vide rent deed Ex.PW1/4.
8.12 Before proceeding further to discuss the issue of termination of the tenancy of the defendant, it is deemed necessary to firstly discuss the objection raised by defendant Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 28 of 36 qua the locus of the plaintiff qua the suit property. Defendant has claimed that the suit property belongs to M/s Ramjas Foundation and after demise of Sh. Deepak Gupta, it got again vested with the aforesaid entity as no right qua the suit property has been transferred in the name of the plaintiffs. This court does not find any substance in this defence as it is well settled law that tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord. As discussed, since the plaintiffs are the landlords, therefore, they have a right to terminate the tenancy of the defendant and recover the possession of the suit property. In this regard, this court is supported by the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled Sri Niwas Gupta Vs. Surender Kumar (RSA 206/2015) (2016 SCC OnLine Del 5618). The relevant paras of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-
"12. It has been held in the case reported as 2011(3) M.P.L.J titled as Pratap Singh (since deceased) by Lr Sardar Singh Vs. Mangal Khan that plaintiff can also file a suit for possession if he is not having actual title but having better title than the defendant. In this case while taking the said view Hon'ble High Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1972 SC 2299, titled as M Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V. Lakshminaravana Rao.
13. Thus, the question of acquisition of land is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present suit and even if plaintiff is unable to prove his valid title, he can also maintain and succeed on the strength of his possessory title. In view of the settled law, it is the concerned government authority which can recover the possession from the plaintiff but a third person having no better right or title has got no right to disturb the possession of the plaintiff".Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 29 of 36
8.13 Furthermore, it is clear from the licence deed Ex.PW1/1 that the deceased husband of Plaintiff no.2 was the licencee qua the property no. PP6 measuring 485 sq.yards, Anand Parbat, New Delhi. It is further clear from the aforesaid discussions that after his demise, the defendant took the suit property on rent from plaintiffs. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Sh. Deepak Gupta and it is clearly mentioned in the licence deed itself that the licence was granted to Sh.Deepak Gupta and it was supposed to be transferred to the legal heirs of the licencee. The relevant clause of the licence deed is reproduced as under:-
" This deed of licence executed this __ in the year 1983 by Sh. Deepak Gupta son of Shri Shiv Charan Gupta resident of S-518, Panchshila Park, New Delhi (hereinafter called the licencee and which expression shall be deemed to include heirs, assigns and representatives as the case may be)."
8.14 During cross examination, plaintiff no.2 deposed that they have already deposited an amount of Rs.6.00 Lakh with Ramjas Foundation and after deposit of Rs.1.90 Lakh, the licence will be transferred in their name. After PW2 deposed the same, neither her said version was rebutted through a suggestion nor the relevant documents related to the same were sought to be produced by Ld. Defence counsel. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of PW2 that plaintiffs have already taken steps for getting the licence transferred in their name. Even otherwise, it is clear that plaintiffs are the legal heirs/successors of Sh. Deepak Gupta and by virtue of the Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 30 of 36 licence deed itself they are entitled to continue with the possession of the suit property as legal heirs/successors of deceased licencee. As far as the contention of defendant regarding pendency of dispute between Ramjas Foundation and DDA is concerned, in view of the settled legal position discussed above, same does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs from seeking the reliefs prayed in the present suit against the defendant. Thus, it is clear from these discussions that since the plaintiffs are occupying the premises as successors of deceased, therefore, they were entitled to let out the suit property and accordingly, plaintiff no.1 had let out the suit property to the defendant and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to file the present suit seeking recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises from the defendant.
8.15 As discussed, defendant was originally let out the suit property vide rent deed Ex.PW1/4 and thereafter, no further rent deed was executed between the parties and as such, the tenancy of the defendant is to be treated month to month tenancy and in view of the Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, same could have been terminated by serving 15 days notice to the defendant and it is clear from the record that tenancy of the defendant has already been terminated vide legal notice Ex.PW1/6.
8.16 Furthermore, it is also well settled law that the filing of the suit itself can also be treated to be notice of Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 31 of 36 termination of tenancy. In this regard, this Court is supported by the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court titled M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/s Jasbir Singh chadha (HUF) & Anr. (RFA 179/2011) (MANU/DE/1277/2011). The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"7. The second argument that.....
(ii) The Supreme Court in the case of Nopany Investments (P)Ltd. Vs.Santokh Singh (HUF) MANU/SC/8184/2007 has held that the tenancy would stand terminated under general law on filing of a suit for eviction. Accordingly, in view of the decision in the case of Nopany (supra) I hold that even assuming the notice terminating tenancy was not served upon the Appellant (though it has been served and as held by me above) the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of the subject suit against the Appellant/Defendant.
8.17 As per the statement of account filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant had been making some payment towards the rent/use and occupation and it is well settled law that after termination of tenancy, the rent paid by the tenant is to be treated as use and occupation charges and acceptance of the same would not amount to renewal of the lease. In this regard, this court is support by the judgement of Amresh Bajaj Vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation (MANU/DE/3479/20917).
8.18 Thus, it is held that tenancy of defendant has been duly terminated and therefore, defendant is liable to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 32 of 368.19 As far as arrears of rent, use of occupation charges is concerned, plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.18,55,289/- on account of the same. As per plaintiff suit property was let out at monthly rent of Rs.13,000/- which was periodically increased and the lastly increased rent was Rs.27,864/-. In order to establish the quantum of arrears of rent, plaintiff has brought on record the statement of account Ex.PW1/5 as per which also the almost similar amount was outstanding as on 05.03.2024. Since the defendant has not disputed the rate of rent applicable during the relevant period, therefore, the amount of monthly rent mentioned in the statement of account Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) is to be assumed to be correct. Though, the plaintiff has claimed entire arrears of rent which seems to be of the period of more than three years, however, in view of the settled law plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent, use and occupation charges and damages only for the period preceding three years of the filing the suit. Plaintiff has filed the present suit in July 2024 and thus, plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of rent, use and occupation charges/damages for the period w.e.f 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2024. As per statement of account, as on June 2021, the monthly rent was Rs.25,331/- and w.e.f 01.11.2022 it was Rs.27,864/- and the rent remained same till filing of the suit. Thus, the aforesaid arrears is to be calculated on the basis of aforesaid prevailing rent which comes to Rs. 9,92,972/-. Since the defendant has been in arrears of rent since long, therefore, Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 33 of 36 plaintiff was entitled to firstly adjust the rent received during the period from 01.06.2021 to 30.06.2024 qua the previous arrears of rent which was of a substantial amount, therefore, the payment made by the defendant during these three years cannot be adjusted qua the arrears of rent of the period with effect from July 2021 to June 2024. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to the entire arrears of rent, use and occupation charges/damages for the aforesaid three years period. As far as the pendentelite and future use and occupation charges/damages are concerned, it is clear that plaintiff is not entitled for the same as plaintiff has not made a specific prayer qua the same. Issues no.1 to 3 are disposed off accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 4Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. on the outstanding arrears amount? OPP
9. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed 18% p.a. interest on the outstanding rent/use and occupation charges. As discussed, the tenancy of the defendant was terminated way back in the year 2021, however, defendant neither handed over the possession nor paid the arrears of rent for use and occupation charges. Therefore, defendant is liable to pay the same alongwith interest, however, it is clear that there was no agreement Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 34 of 36 between the parties regarding any payment of rate of specific interest on the delayed rent, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, plaintiff is awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on the arrears of rent/use and occupation charges of Rs.9,92,972/- till realization. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is most respectfully observed that the case laws cited by the Ld. Defence Counsel are not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
RELIEF
10. In view of my issues wise findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of possession of suit property, arrears of rent as well as use and occupation charges. As such, the plaintiff has been awarded the following reliefs:-
(i) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of possession of suit property i.e. Hall measuring 18.3'x37.9' situated at the ground floor of property bearing no. PP-6 Gali no.10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi-110005 as also specified in the site plan Ex.PW1/3. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover the possession of the suit property from the defendant.
(ii) The plaintiff is awarded arrears of rent/use and occupation charge of Rs.9,92,972/- w.e.f July 2021 to June 2024 (preceding three years of filing the present Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 35 of 36 suit) and as such, plaintiff is held entitled to recover the same from the defendant.
(iii) The plaintiff is awarded pendentelite and future interest @ 9% p.a. on the arrears of rent/use and occupation charges of Rs.9,92,972/- till realization.
(iv) Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
11. It is made clear that defendant shall be entitled to the security amount of Rs.65,000/- after the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over by him to the plaintiffs and also after he pays the entire arrears of rent/use and occupation charges and interest awarded to the plaintiffs.
Decree sheet be accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Digitally
signed by
Court on 30.08.2025 AJAY AJAY GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.30
16:55:32
+0530
(Ajay Gupta)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05 West, Tis Hazari Courts Extension Block, Delhi/30.08.2025 Case No. CS(COMM)/550/2024 Page No. 36 of 36