Delhi District Court
Arvind Kumar Adukia vs Kashmiri Lal Bhutani on 28 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEET ANAND, DISTRICT
JUDGE-11, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI.
RCA DJ No. 169/2024
CNR No. DLCT01018396-2024
Arvind Kumar Adukia
S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar Adukia
R/o 4692-94, Second Floor,
Laxmi Bazar, Cloth Market,
Fatehpuri Delhi ....... Appellant
Versus
Kashmiri Lal Bhutani
S/o Sh. Bahadur Chand Bhutani
R/o G-40, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ......Respondent
Date of Registration : 25.11.2024
Date of Arguments : 10.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 28.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL UNDER ORDER 41 CPC FOR SETTING
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2024
PASSED BY LD. ASCJ, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI.
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2026.04.29
17:14:58
+0530
RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 1 of 50
JUDGMENT
1) Vide this judgment, this court shall decide and dispose off the First Appeal preferred by the appellant, namely Arvind Kumar Adukia (Defendant in the main suit) (hereinafter defendant) assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2024, passed by Ld. ASCJ, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Civil Suit no. 93294/2016; whereby the suit of the Respondent, herein, namely Kashmiri Lal Bhutani (Plaintiff in the main suit) (hereinafter plaintiff) for possession of property; and recovery of damages/mesne profits for use and occupation of the property has been decreed by the Ld. Trial Court.
2) As per the averments made in the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that; viz
(i) He is the owner of the property bearing No. 4692 (half), 4693 and 4694 at Laxmi Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006, having purchased the same from its 'previous owner' (hereinafter referred to as 'The Property').
(ii) The property comprises of some shops on the ground floor; and residential accommodation on the first, second and third floor.
(iii) Some of the portions of 'The Property' are in the occupation of the plaintiff; and the some portions are in the occupation of different tenants, except the accommodation on the 'second floor' of 'The Property', which is in the occupation of the defendant. (Herein after referred as the 'Suit Property').
(iv) The defendant was kept in the Suit Property by the 'previous owner as a licensee' to look after the accommodation Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 2 of 50 ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:04 +0530 at the second floor.
(v) The 'previous owner' namely Mrs. Saroj Gupta sold the property to the plaintiff on 09.02.1994.
(vi) Before selling the property to the plaintiff, the 'previous owner', Smt. Saroj Gupta, asked the defendant to vacate the 'Suit Property', however, the defendant failed to do so.
(vii) The plaintiff after purchasing 'The Property' verbally terminated the license of the defendant to occupy the 'Suit Property' with effect from March, 1994; and the defendant also promised to vacate the suit property by the end of March, but he did not vacate the premises.
(viii) The defendant thereafter, locked the suit property; and it remains locked for most of the time; and the defendant very seldom visits the suit property.
(ix) Since the termination of the license of the defendant to occupy the 'Suit Property', the appellant has no legal right to remain in the occupation of the 'Suit Property'. Thus, the defendant has become an unauthorized and illegal occupant of the suit property since 31.03.1994.
(x) Since, the defendant has not vacated the premises, hence the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the recovery of the possession of the 'Suit Property'.
3) The plaintiff in his suit, also sought Damages/Mesne Profit for use and occupation of the Suit Premises from the defendant @ Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. the then prevailing market rate of rent.
Thus, the plaintiff claims damages/mesne profit to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- with effect from 01.04.1994 to 31.08.1994 i.e. the date of filing of suit. Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 3 of 50 ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:08 +0530
4) The plaintiff also claim Future Damages/Mesne Profits for use and occupation of the suit property from the date of filing of the suit till handing over of the possession and had undertaken to pay the court fees upon the determination of the total amount.
5) The plaintiff in his suit made the following prayers; viz
a) A decree for possession of second floor in property no.4692-94- Second Floor, Laxmi Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006, more particularly shown as RED in the site plan attached;
b) A decree for recovery of Rs. 20,000/-;
c) A decree for future damages/mesne profits for use and occupation from the date of filing of the suit till the handing over the possession by the defendant may also pleased be passed and the plaintiff undertakes to pay court fees on that;
d) Cost of the suit may also be awarded to the plaintiff;
e) Any other Relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
6) After the institution of the suit, it was first listed before the Court on 11.10.1994. On the same date, summons for settlement for issues were issued to the defendant.
7) However, as despite several attempts the defendant remained unserved, the plaintiff on 14.12.1995 moved an application for substituted service of the defendant under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.
RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 4 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:14 +0530 The same was allowed; and the defendant was served by way of publication.
8) On 12.03.1996, as the defendant did not appear, despite having been served by way of publication, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
9) Consequently, after leading ex-parte, plaintiff evidence and addressing ex-parte final arguments, on 19.03.2001 the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.
10) In an execution petition preferred by the plaintiff, the possession of the 'Suit Property' was also obtained by the plaintiff.
11) Thereafter, on 09.08.2002, the defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Notice was issued on this application. The plaintiff entered appearance, and filed his reply.
12) Eventually, vide order dated 22.11.2004, the application of the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed; and the ex-
parte decree dated 19.03.2001 was set asided. Consequently, the defendant was given opportunity to file his written statement.
13) Thereafter, on 23.12.2024, the defendant filed his written statement. The plaintiff also filed his replication. Before adverting to the defence raised by defendant in his written statement, and the issues framed for trial, it is pertinent to mention herein that, the defendant also filed an application under Section 144 CPC seeking restitution of possession of the suit property back to him.
14) The application of defendant under Section 144 CPC was allowed vide order dated 07.05.2013. The first appeal, as well as the revision against the first appeal, against the said order, preferred by the plaintiff were dismissed; and, consequently, the possession of the suit property was restored to the defendant.
RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 5 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:20 +0530
15) According to the written statement filed by the defendant, it is the case of the defendant that; viz
a) The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable being barred under Order 6 Rule 2 CPC; and the plaint being not verified as per Delhi High Court Rules; and the plaint not been supported with proper legal affidavit.
b) The plaint is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC being without any cause of action and as the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has concealed relevant and material facts.
c) The suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, as the market value of the suit property, at the time of the filing of the suit was more than Rs. 20 Lacs.
d) The plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord, and thus, has no concern with the suit property as well as with the defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present case against the defendant in respect of the suit property.
e) The defendant was never served with any notice of termination as required under the Provisions of Transfer of Property Act.
f) The defendant is a lawful tenant in the suit property at the monthly rent of Rs. 125/- (One Twenty Five Rupees). Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the DRC Act.
g) The suit property was let out to the defendant by Smt Savitri Devi, the actual owner of the suit property in the year 1982 for Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 6 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:24 +0530 residential-cum-commercial purposes; and since then the defendant is enjoying and residing in the suit property with his family members, and is running his business under the name and style of 'M/s Abhishek International' from the suit property.
h) The owner and landlord of the suit property Smt Savitri Devi used to receive rent from the defendant; and after her death, her daughter Usha Devi was collecting the rent from the defendant.
However, neither Smt Savitri Devi, nor Usha Devi were in habit of issuing rent receipts against the rent received by them from the defendant.
i) The defendant was enjoying the suit property peacefully without any interference, but in the month of July 1994, the plaintiff illegally started harassing the defendant on the pretext that he has purchased the suit property; but in the absence of any information from the owner and the landlord of the suit property, and without any letter of attornment from the owner/landlord, the defendant did not admit the plaintiff as the landlord or owner of the suit property.
j) The plaintiff also forcibly attempted to lock the suit property and take forcible possession from the plaintiff. The matter was reported to the police by the defendant vide his complaint dated 18.07.1994.
k) As the plaintiff could not succeed in dispossessing the defendant forcibly from the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff filed false and frivolous suit against the defendant.
16) On merits, the defendant has denied the case of the plaintiff. He has denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the property RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 7 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:29 +0530 including the suit property. He has challenged the sale deed, on the basis of which, plaintiff claims ownership over the suit property as forged and fabricated documents.
17) The defendant has also challenged the right, title and interest of Smt. Saroj Gupta over the suit property and has claimed that she was not empowered to execute the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as she herself was never the owner of The Property at any point of time.
18) The defendant claims that Smt. Savitri Devi, and after her death, her daughter Smt Usha Devi was the owner and the landlord of the suit property; and they never informed the defendant about the transfer of the suit property in favour of anyone.
19) The defendant claims that the alleged sale deed, on the basis of which, the plaintiff claims right and ownership over the suit property is 'Null and Void' and the defendant reserves his right to file a suit for declaration to declare the alleged sale deed as 'Null and Void'.
20) On the basis, of the pleadings made by the contesting parties, vide order dated 11.05.2005 the following Issues were framed for trial; viz
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises? (OPP)
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit, if yes at what rate at for what period? (OPP)
iii) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant? (OPP)
iv) Whether the suit is barred u/s 50 of DRC Act? (OPD)
v) Whether the suit is not properly verified? (OPP) RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 8 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:33 +0530
vi) Whether the plaintiff has not locus standi? (OPP)
vii) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? (OPP)
viii) Relief.
21) In order to prove its case, on the threshold of pre-ponderence probabilities, the plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box and was examined as PW1. His evidence by way of affidavit is Ex.PW1/A. In his evidence, he filed and relied upon the following two documents; viz
a) Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) - Sale Deed dated 09.02.1994 executed by Smt Saroj Gupta in favour of the plaintiff Kashmiri Lal Bhutani.
b) Ex.PW1/2 - Site plan.
22) The plaintiff, in support of his case, also examined one Sh.
S. Gurbachan Singh as PW2. His evidence by way of affidavit is on record and is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. He did not file and rely upon any document.
23) Further, in support of his defence, the defendant himself stepped in the witness box and was examined as DW1. His evidence affidavit is on record as Ex.DW1/A. In support of his case, the defendant filed and relied upon following documents; viz
a) Mark A- Copy of Ration Card;
b) Ex.DW1/2 (OSR)- Copy of Election ID Card;
c) Ex.DW1/3 (Colly) (OSR)- Copy of Telegram dated 06.11.1992;
d) Ex.DW1/4 (Copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate);
e) Ex.DW1/5 (Copies of Bank Passbooks);
f) Ex.DW1/6 (colly) (Counter foils);
Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 9 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:37 +0530
g) Ex.DW1/7 (Copy of acknowledgment slips for registration- cum demand note of MTNL, in the name defendant's wife);
h) Ex.DW1/8 (Copy of a registered letter dated 23.01.1985 in the name of Gajanand Sharma),
i) Ex.DW1/15 (Report under Section 173 Cr.PC);
j) Ex.DW1/16 (Photographs of the suit property). (All de- exhibited at request of defendant);
k) Ex.DW1/9 (OSR)- Copy of complaint dated 18.07.1994 (objected to on the ground of mode of proof);
l) Ex.DW1/10 (colly)- Copy of list of articles submitted to police after theft by the defendant. (objected to on the ground of mode of proof )
m) Ex.DW1/11- Bail Rejection order of plaintiff dated 17.01.2003. (objected to on the ground of mode of proof)
n) Ex.DW1/12- Bail Order of co-accused Sh Charanjeet dated 17.01.2003. (objected to on the ground of mode of proof)
o) Ex.DW1/13- Bail Rejection order dated 09.06.2003 in respect of co-accused Madan Lal in FIR no. 603/02 (objected to on the ground of mode of proof).
p) Mark B- Copy of criminal complaint.
24) Further, in support of his defence, the defendant also examined, one Ashok Jain as DW2. His evidence by way of affidavit is on record and is exhibited as Ex.DW2/A. He has not filed and relied upon any document.
25) Further, the defendant, also examined one Gajanand as DW-3. His evidence by way of affidavit is on record and is exhibited as Ex.DW3/A. In his evidence he relied upon one document i.e. Ex.DW3/1 (OSR).
Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 10 of 50 ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:42 +0530
26) After specifically dealing with all the Issues framed in this matter, the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2024, which is under challenge, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in following terms; viz
(i) A decree of possession of second floor, property no. 4692 (half), 4963 and 4694, Laxmi Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi, as shown in RED Color in the site plan exhibit Ex.PW1/2; and
ii) The plaintiff shall remit the deficient ad-
volerum court fees on the proportionate value of the suit property with reference to the sale consideration of sale deed Ex.PW1/1; and
iii) A decree of mesne profits in respect of suit property at the rate of Rs 4000/- per month with effect from 11.10.1994 till handing over the possession by the defendant with yearly increment @ of 15 % along with interest thereon @ 6 % per annum till realization; and
iv) Realistic cost of Rs. 5 Lacs in terms of judgment of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC
344.
27) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2024, the defendant approached this court by way of present first appeal.
28) This first appeal, after its institution, was first listed before this court on 25.11.2024. On the same date notice of the appeal was Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 11 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:47 +0530 issued to the plaintiff. The Trial Court record was also summoned.
29) On 15.02.2025, the plaintiff/respondent entered appearance and sought time to address arguments on appeal. It was allowed.
However, the operation of the impugned order was stayed till the next date of hearing.
30) Detailed final arguments on appeal were heard on 20.01.2026. Subsequently, clarification were taken from parties on 23.03.2026; and on 10.04.2026.
31) Order-sheet dated 10.04.2026, records presence of none, but notes that clarifications sought. This is an error. On 10.04.2026, clarification were sought from the defendant.
32) In addition to the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in his appeal; in his oral arguments, the appellant made following submission; viz
a) The Trial Court has committed error in granting the mesne profits considering the suit property as a commercial property, whereas it is admittedly stated by the plaintiff in Para no.2 of his plaint that it is a residential property.
b) The tenancy of the appellant in the suit property was on the basis of oral tenancy.
c) As per the averments made by the plaintiff, the previous owner of the property, Smt. Saroj Gupta inducted the defendant as a licensee in the suit property; however, the defendant claims that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property, in 1982, by Smt. Savitri; and Smt. Saroj became the owner of the suit property much later in the year 1992.
d) Thus, the defendant contends that, once he is able to demonstrate/establish, which he has by his evidence, and cross-
Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 12 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:51 +0530 examination of plaintiff witnesses, that he is in possession of suit property since 1982 then the entire case of the plaintiff collapses.
e) As the plaintiff admittedly terminated the license/tenancy of the defendant orally, thus such termination is not valid and is not recognized under law. Thus, the suit for possession of plaintiff is bad in law due to non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 106 Transfer of Property Act.
f) It is also contended that the written termination notice was intentionally not issued by the plaintiff to the defendant because of pure ulterior motives, in which he also succeeded by initially obtaining an ex-parte decree against the defendant.
g) The Ld. Trial Court has granted mesne profits to the plaintiff even for those 15 years during which the defendant was undisputedly out of possession of suit property; as the plaintiff had taken possession of suit property in execution, after the passing of ex-parte decree against the defendant; and the possession continued to remain with the plaintiff till the restitution application of defendant under Section 144 CPC was allowed by the court. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court committed grave error in calculating and awarding of mesne profits. It is also contended that awarding of mesne profits is also erroneous because no formal proof regarding prevailing rent was proved by the plaintiff.
h) After passing of the ex-parte decree against the defendant, the plaintiff and the bailiff, while taking the possession of the suit property in the execution proceedings, committed theft of belongings of the defendant lying in the suit property, which RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 13 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:15:56 +0530 culminated into registration of FIR against the plaintiff and the bailiff.
i) The plaintiff miserably failed to discharge his burden before the Ld. Trial Court in establishing that the defendant is a licensee in the Suit Property. Moreover, the Ld. Trial Court erred in wrongly putting the onus on the defendant/appellant to establish/prove that he is a tenant in the suit property, when the plaintiff had failed to discharge his initial burden.
j) From the sale deed filed and relied upon by the plaintiff to establish his ownership over the property it is crystal clear that defendant is a tenant in the suit property; as he is clearly referred therein as an 'unauthorized tenant'.
k) It is contended that by no stretch of imagination an 'unauthorized tenant' can be read, construed and understood as an unauthorized licensee.
l) Lastly, it is contended vehemently that the defendant is a tenant in the suit property. Thus, the present suit is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
m) Thus, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2024 be set asided; and the suit of plaintiff be dismissed.
33) In order to contradict the arguments advanced by the defendant, the plaintiff contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court does not suffer from any factual, or legal infirmity, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also contended that; viz,
a) It is admitted and not disputed that the defendant was inducted in the suit property by Smt. Savitri Devi, who was the RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 14 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:00 +0530 predecessor-in-interest in the suit property before Smt. Saroj Gupta, who sold the property to plaintiff.
b) Once the defendant has admitted the execution of the sale deed, vide which the property comprising the suit property stands sold to the plaintiff, thereafter, he cannot challenge the ownership of plaintiff.
c) In the sale deed, details of all the tenants occupying different portions in the property are clearly mentioned. And, against each tenant the rate of rent is specifically mentioned; whereas, only against the name of the defendant it is specifically mentioned as 'unauthorized tenant'.
d) It is contended that the word 'unauthorized' mentioned against the defendant coupled with the absence of mention of any rate of rent against his name clearly suggests that he is a licensee whose license stands terminated/revoked.
e) The defendant despite being aggrieved by the averments made in the sale deed, which adversely affect him, did not challenge it, or seeks its cancellation at any point of time.
f) The onus was directly upon the defendant to prove that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property to establish his claim that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 50 of the DRC Act. However, the defendant has miserably failed to discharge this onus.
g) Plaintiff contends that except for mere hollow averments by the defendant that he is a tenant in the suit property, he has not tendered in evidence and proved during trial any documentary evidence to establish his tenancy, especially he has not filed any rent receipt issued by the owner/landlord.
Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 15 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:04 +0530
h) Even since 1994, and even after the institution of the present suit, the defendant never tendered any rent to the plaintiff.
Moreover, for a significant period of time, the defendant also did not deposit the rent with the Rent Controller; and it is only at the fag end of trial of this case that, the defendant started depositing rent with the Rent Controller qua the suit property.
i) The trial court has adequately dealt with the issue of verbal termination of license of the defendant by the plaintiff. The Ld. Trial Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, arrived at a conclusion that, filing of suit for possession is akin to notice Under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
j) Lastly, with respect to mesne profits, the plaintiff contends that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly computed the amount of mesne profits. However, for the period during which the defendant was out of possession of the suit property and the possession was with the plaintiff, he is ready and willing to forego the mesne profits for such period, and that his concession may be recorded to such extent.
34) This court has perused the entire record including the Trial Court record. This court has carefully perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2024; and the findings returned by the Ld. Trial Court on each issues tried by it.
35) This court has closely examined the entire ocular and documentary evidences led by the contesting parties; and this court has carefully re-appreciated entire set of facts and evidence in this case.
36) It is undisputed and firmly rooted fact that the defendant is in the possession of the suit property. It is also undisputed and Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 16 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:09 +0530 firmly rooted fact that as on 1994, when the plaintiff claims to have become the owner of the property, comprising of the suit property, having purchased the same from Smt Saroj Gupta the defendant was already in possession of the suit property.
37) The counsel for the plaintiff, in his oral arguments has stated that indeed the defendant was inducted in the suit property by the predecessor-in-interest of Smt. Saroj Gupta, i.e. by her mother Late Smt Savitri Devi.
38) The plaintiff in para No.3 of his plaint has categorically stated that, "The defendant was kept in the suit premises by the previous owner as a licensee to look after the accommodation at Second floor."
39) Immediately, thereafter, the plaintiff in para No.3 of his plaint has mentioned that, "The previous owner Mrs saroj Gupta sold the property to the plaintiff on 09.02.1994".
40) Moreover, in para No.1 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that, "The plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the previous owner."
41) In the entire plaint of the plaintiff there is no utterance of name of Sm. Savitri Devi, admittedly the predecessor-in-interest, and mother of Smt. Saroj Gupta, who sold the suit property to the plaintiff.
42) Thus, it is conclusively established that the reference to 'Previous owner' by the plaintiff in his plaint refers to Smt. Saroj Gupta only.
43) The plaintiff in his cross-examination admits that, "he became the tenant in respect of shop on the ground floor in the year 1986." He also further admits that, "the shop on the ground floor RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 17 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:13 +0530 was taken on rent by me from Smt Savitri Devi at a monthly rent of Rs. 70 to 80 approximately."
44) The plaintiff in his cross-examination has stated that, "I do not know in which yer Smt Savitri Devi died, however, she might have died in the year 1989."
45) However, from Ex.PW1/D1, which is the petition for the issuance of Letter of Administration of Will and Testament of Late Smt. Savitri, it is clear that Smt. Savitri expired on 20.03.1987 at Jaipur.
46) Ex.PW1/D1 finally culminated in passing of Probate in favour of Smt Saroj Gupta, thus the plaintiff cannot dispute this document, irrespective of fact that whether it is proved or not as per legal standards, as the sale deed executed in his favour by Smt. Saroj Gupta stand on these documents.
47) Likewise, copy of order dated 28.09.1992, passed by the Hon'be High Court of Bombay is on record. As per the said order, the letter of Administration qua Will of Savitri Devi was issued to her daughter Saroj Gupta on 28.09.1992.
48) Thus, the suggestions given by counsel for the defendant to PW1 that before 28.09.1992 Saroj Gupta could not have inducted anyone in the property in any capacity carry due weight.
49) As already discussed, the plaintiff has categorically stated in his plaint that the 'previous owner' of the suit property was Ms. Saroj Gupta; and that she had kept the defendant in the suit property as a licensee to look after the accommodation at the second floor.
50) However, to a specific question put to the plaintiff during his cross-examination conducted as PW1 on 30.03.2016, that, "Ques:
Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 18 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:18 +0530 Have you stated in your affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PW1/A that suit premises was given on license and permissive user to the defendant by Mrs. Saroj Gupta".
51) Although, this question was objected to by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that it is a content of affidavit; however the witness, i.e. PW1 (plaintiff) answered that, "I do not remember whether I stated as such in my affidavit or not."
52) This statement of plaintiff in his cross-examination, coupled with the fact that before issuance of letter of administration in 1992 Smt. Saroj Gupta could not have inducted anyone in the property begins to cloud the case of the plaintiff, that the defendant is a licensee in the suit premises put into possession of the suit property by Smt. Saroj Gupta.
53) Further, the plaintiff in his cross-examination conducted as PW1 on 30.03.2016 stated that, "I do not know as to in which year the suit premises were given to the defendant by Ms. Saroj Gupta".
Considering that the plaintiff being a tenant in the part of the same property, which he subsequently completely purchases for valuable consideration is not aware about who is in the possession of second floor of such property and since when is highly unlikely and unacceptable.
54) This averment of the plaintiff, made in his cross- examination, as above referred in the proceeding paragraph, along with his other statements made in his cross-examination on 26.08.2015, that, "I became tenant in respect of a shop on the ground floor in the year 1986 and in respect of the first floor of the said premises which was commercial prior to the year 1994. However, I do not exactly remember the year of creation of RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 19 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:23 +0530 tenancy of the first floor." Clearly reflect that the defendant is witholding facts from this court.
55) Likewise, the plaintiff in his further cross-examination conducted on 26.08.2015 itself stated that, "I do not know who were the other tenants in the property in the year 1986 when I had taken ground floor on rent. I gained the knowledge of other tenants in the year 1994 when I purchased the said property. Between the year 1986 to 1994, I was continuously running a business of trading in cloth from the ground floor shop. The first floor portion was being continuously used by me for godown after it was taken on rent by me prior to 1984."
56) These averments made by the plaintiff in his cross-
examination, as noted in the preceding paragraphs are clearly against the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of this particular case. Thus, in terms of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 119 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) this court raises a presumption that between 1986 to 1994 the plaintiff was was fully aware of all the persons occupying the different portions in the property, including the suit property; however, he has willfully withheld, and not disclosed such information, because if he would have disclosed it, the same would have gone against him.
57) Furthermore, the plaintiff in para No.3 of this plaint has stated that, "the defendant was kept in the suit premises by the previous owner as a licensee to look after the accommodation at Second Floor. The previous owner Ms. Saroj Gupta sold the property to the plaintiff on 09.02.1994 and before the sale of the Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 20 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:27 +0530 property she asked the defendant to vacate the premises but the defendant failed to vacate the premises."
58) There is nothing, whatsoever, on record to even remotely establish that the previous owner Smt. Saroj Gupta had asked the defendant to vacate the premises. Certainly, no written notice was also issued by Saroj Gupta to the defendant, as the same is not been pleaded in the plaint.
59) It is the established rule of evidence that fact must be proved by best available evidence. Presuming the case of the plaintiff to be true and correct that Smt. Saroj Gupta inducted defendant as a licensee in the suit property; still this fact could have been proved only Smt Saroj Gupta, but not by plaintiff.
60) The averment made by the plaintiff during his cross-
examination as PW1 conducted on 26.08.2015 that, 'At the time of execution of the sale deed, Saroj Gupta had told me that the defendant was not a tenant'; thereby, suggesting that he was a permissive user/licensee makes it abundantly clear that Saroj Gupta alone was competent to prove the capacity in which defendant was occupying the suit property.
61) And, statements made by the plaintiff on the basis of knowledge derived from Saroj Gupta squarely fall under the bracket of 'Hearsay Evidence', which deserved to be discarded.
62) Hence, as the plaintiff has no personal knowledge about status in which defendant occupies the suit property. Thus he is not competent to prove the same by his, or by ocular evidence of PW2.
63) Hence in order to establish that in what capacity the defendant occupies the suit property, the person who inducted him; i.e. Saroj Gupta, according to the plaintiff, ought to have been Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 21 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:32 +0530 examined by the plaintiff in support of case.
64) The non-examination of a crucial witness; i.e. Saroj Gupta, further compels this court to raise an adverse inference against the plaintiff, that if he would have examined Saroj Gupta, she would not have supported the case of the plaintiff.
65) Some of the most crucial statements have been made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination conducted as PW1 on 30.03.2016. On this date, a specific question was asked to PW1 that, "Ques: Can you tell the date on which you allegedly terminate the license of the defendant as mentioned by you in your plaint as well as in affidavit Ex.PW1/A." In response to this question, the plaintiff stated that, "The license was terminated on 31.03.1994."
He further stated that, "I do not remember whether I have written this date of termination of license in my affidavit by way of evidence or plaint. I have terminated the license of the defendant verbally as on the said date the defendant had come to me and he had asked for issuance of Rent Receipts." "I do not remember whether I have mentioned the aforesaid fact in my affidavit and in the plaint that the defendant has come to me on 31.03.1994 asking for rent receipts".
66) The above-noted averments made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination point specifically towards an inference that the defendant was a tenant in the suit property; and that he also approached the plaintiff, soon after the plaintiff purchased the property, comprising suit property, seeking issuance of rent receipts. And, as the earlier owner was not in a habit of issuing rent receipts, a fact which this court shall discuss later in this judgment, the plaintiff instead of issuing rent receipts to the defendant Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 22 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:37 +0530 decided to evict him by labelling him as a licensee/permissive user.
67) If the defendant was not a tenant, but a mere permissive user/licensee then there was no occasion for him to have claimed the Rent Receipts. However, if the same were still demanded, then it was absolutely incumbent upon the plaintiff to have terminated the license of defendant in writing, giving due reason that as despite being a licensee/permissive user, the defendant is seeking issuance of Rent Receipts, therefore, his license qua permissive use of suit property is canceled. However, the plaintiff did not resort to this natural course of conduct. Moreover, the plaintiff did not plead this crucial fact in his plaint.
68) The Ld. Trial has dealt with two core issues of this suit; i.e. Issue no.1 and Issue no.4 together. Issue no.1, "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises? (OPP)"; and Issue no.4 is "Whether the suit is barred u/s 50 of DRC Act? (OPD)".
69) Onus to prove Issue no.1 was on the plaintiff, whereas the onus to prove Issue no.4 was on the defendant. After elaborate discussion by the Ld. Trial Court, the Issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff; and the Issue no.4 has been decided against the defendant. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.
70) The reasoning's given and the findings returned by the Ld. Trial Court while deciding both the above referred two core Issues in Para No. 17 to 14 of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereunder;
Para No.1 These issues are taken together as they demand a common finding. It is the case Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 23 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:41 +0530 of the plaintiff that he has purchased the property bearing No. 4692 (half), 4693 and 4694, Laxmi Bazar Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi from the erstwhile owner Smt. Saroj Gupta vide sale deed Ex. PW1/1 on 09.02.1994. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant is the unauthorized occupant in respect of the suit property as he was merely a licensee and despite terminating his licensee orally, he did not vacate the suit property. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that he was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property by the previous owner Smt. Savitri Devi (predecessor-in-interest of Smt. Saroj Gupta) in the year 1982 for commercial-
cum-residential purposes at the monthly rent of Rs.125/-. That neither the previous owner Smt. Savitri Devi nor Smt. Saroj Gupta used to issue rent receipts in respect of the rent received from the defendant. It is alleged by the defendant that plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property. However, during the course of his cross-examination, the defendant himself deposed that in the month of June 2002, he came to know that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff. It is also pertinent to mention that Ld. counsel for the defendant himself put the Will and the Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 24 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:50 +0530 probate granted in favour of Smt. Saroj Gupta to the plaintiff during his cross examination. Therefore, the defence of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property does not stand. However, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff himself has admitted that when he entered the property as a tenant in the year 1985, he was aware about the occupation of the defendant and since at that time the owner of the property was Smt. Savitri Devi, the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant was inducted as a licensee in the suit property stands falsified. It true that the plaintiff has averred in para No. 3 of the plaint that the defendant was kept as a licensee in the suit property by the previous owner and the previous owner has been stated to be Smt. Saroj Gupta and from the testimony of PW1, it is revealed that Smt. Saroj Gupta became the owner of the property in question on in the year 1992 by virtue of Will dated 14.08.1986. But this fact by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the defendant was a tenant in the suit property and not a licensee. The burden of proving that the defendant was a statutory tenant under DRC Act was on the defendant and he was required to establish RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 25 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:55 +0530 from the documentary proof that he was a tenant protected under DRC Act and not merely a permissive user.
Para no.18 It is pertinent to mention that the defendant has not been able to bring on record any documentary evidence to establish his plea that he was a tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. In a civil suit such as the present case the parties to the suit are expected to prove their respective case by leading documentary evidences. However, the defendant has failed to bring on record any document such as rent agreement or rent receipts to establish that he was a tenant in the suit property. It is the plea of the defendant that the tenancy was oral and the previous owner(s) did not use to issue rent receipts. It is pertinent to mention that during the cross examination of the defendant, the plaintiff confronted the defendant with rent receipts Ex. DW1/X1 to Ex. DW1/X8 which were issued to the plaintiff (as the plaintiff was also a tenant in the property earlier) as well as to the other tenants. It is also pertinent to mention that no electricity or water connection was installed in the suit property in the name of the defendant. It was admitted by the defendant during his cross examination that he has not Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 26 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:16:59 +0530 paid the house tax of the suit property at any point of time. Therefore, the plea of the defendant that he was a statutory tenant in respect of the suit property appears to be moonshine. The defendant has miserably failed to prove that he was a statutory tenant under DRC Act in respect of the suit property. Para no.19 It is the plea of the defendant that he was doing business under the name M/s Abhishek International from the suit property. However, the defendant has failed to prove by leading any evidence that he was doing business from the suit property. During his cross examination, defendant deposed that the income tax returns were stolen by the plaintiff when he took possession of the suit property. However, the defendant could have summoned the record from the income tax office but he did not do so. Further, if the defendant was doing business from the suit property, he must have been registered with the sale tax authorities but the defendant also did not bring on record any document pertaining to sales tax nor he chose to summon the record from the concerned sales tax department. It is also pertinent to mention that the defendant deposed during his cross examination that he was not showing the rent of the suit property Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 27 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:05 +0530 in the income tax returns. If the defendant was doing business from the suit property, there was no occasion for the defendant to not claim tax rebate on the rent being paid by him in respect of the suit property.
Para No.20 It is also pertinent to mention that in the sale deed Ex. PW1/1, the defendant has been described as an unauthorized tenant. It is the contention of the defendant that the phrase 'unauthorized tenant' is suggestive of the fact that the defendant was a statutory tenant whose tenancy was determined but protected by the statute i.e. DRC Act. The interpretation given by Ld. counsel for the defendant cannot be accepted since the phrase 'unauthorized tenant' does not appear to be used in the sense of the meaning given to the term statutory tenant within the scheme of the DRC Act. The phrase 'unauthorized tenant' has been used by private parties in a sale deed and therefore, the said phrase could also be interpreted to mean 'unauthorized occupant' because all the other tenants who are mentioned in clause 2 of the sale deed are statutory tenants themselves, therefore, if the intention of the parties were to convey the nature of the tenancy as protected by the DRC Act then all the other tenants would also have been described as RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 28 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:11 +0530 'unauthorized tenants'. Further, it is only the defendant in respect of which no rate of rent has been mentioned, whereas in respect of all the other, the rate of rent has been mentioned. It is the contention of Ld. counsel for the defendant that once the defendant has been described as 'unauthorized tenant' in the sale deed Ex. PW1/1, the plaintiff was barred from contradicting the same in view of Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon Suraj Munjal (supra), Roop Kumar (supra) and Placido Francisco Pinto (supra) in this regard. The contention of Ld. counsel for the defendant is misconceived as Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act apply only to 'terms of contract, grant or any other disposition of property' and not to any other information which might have been mentioned in the document. In the present case, the provisions of Section 91 and 92 would be applicable only to the terms of the transaction of sale and not to the information about the occupants as mentioned in clause 2 of the sale deed. The authorities relied upon by Ld. counsel for the defendant is not applicable as the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act do not apply to the facts of the Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 29 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:16 +0530 present case.
Para no.21 It is the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff has obtained the possession of the suit property surreptitiously when he was out of India from October - November 2001 till June 2002 due to the medical condition of his mother. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant deposed in his cross examination that his mother was residing at Kathmandu along-with his brother and that he used to visit Kathmandu for business purpose and that he was also having a rented accommodation at Kathmandu. However, nothing has been brought on record by the defendant to substantiate his claim about his alleged visit except self-serving statements. It is deposed by him that he used to operate business from India. He further deposed that from 2001 to 2003, he along-with his family i.e. his wife and children were shifted to Malviya Nagar and from there to Hong Kong. It is deposed by him that during the period between 2001-2003, his son completed his study and his daughter was studying in Kamla Nehru College. However, it is also deposed by the defendant during his cross examination that prior to 2001, his children were residing at Kathmandu but his wife was residing in India. It is also RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 30 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:20 +0530 deposed by the defendant during his cross examination at the subsequent stage that his family is settled in Hong Kong and he occasionally visits India. Further, the plaintiff has filed copies of (i) lease deed dated 21.09.2002 in respect of 77-V, Malviya Nagar, Delhi, (ii) lease deed dated 01.08.2004 in respect of R-20, South Extn., (iii) lease deed dated 09.06.2008 in respect of 5/55, WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi, (iv) lease deed of June 2008 in respect of 59/18, Rohtak Road, Delhi
(v) lease deed dated 03.06.2014 in respect of New Rohtak Road, Delhi executed in favour of the defendant. These lease deeds are not disputed by the defendants. It is pertinent to mention that even though the defendant has deposed in his cross-examination that he had taken Malviya Nagar property on lease in September 2003, but as per the lease deed the said property was taken on lease w.e.f.
01.10.2002 till 30.08.2002. It is pertinent to mention that all these properties were taken on lease for residential purposes. Moreover, in none of these lease deeds, the defendant has shown the suit property as his residence. Thus, the deposition of the defendant is contradictory and it raises a doubt on the assertion of the defendant that he was residing RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 31 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:25 +0530 in the suit property and was actively using the same. The testimony of the defendant does not inspire confidence at all.
Para No. 22 It is to be noted here that the plaintiff as well as the defendant has examined witnesses to prove their respective claim about the possession of the defendant in respect of the suit property but their testimonies appear to be self serving and the witnesses PW2, DW2 and DW3 are not found to be trustworthy. Therefore, reliance should not be placed upon their testimony in deciding the issues involved in the present suit. Para no. 23 In view of the above, the plaintiff has been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the defendant was a permissive user of the suit property. The defendant has not been able to discharge his burden for proving that he was a statutory tenant under DRC Act. In the present case no written notice of the termination of license was given by the plaintiff, however, it is case of the plaintiff that he had verbally terminated the license of the defendant w.e.f. from 31.03.1994. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant himself has stated in his written statement that the plaintiff started harassing the defendant in July, 1994 on the ground that Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 32 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:29 +0530 he has purchased the property. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff that he has verbally terminated the license finds corroboration from the averments of the written statement itself but it is unclear as to when the same was done. The evidence adduced by the parties is not sufficient to hold that the license was terminated in March, 1994. However, even if it is assumed that no notice of termination was not served, the license can be treated to be terminated on filing of the suit. In Nopany Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh, 146 2008 DLT 195, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if no notice of termination of tenancy is served, the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of a suit for eviction. There is no reason why the said ration would not be applicable to the present case.
Para no.24 The defendant has also disputed the site plan filed by the plaintiff. However, the defendant himself has not filed any site plan. It is a settled law that if the defendant disputes the correctness of the site plan filed by the plaintiff, he must file a counter site plan and he cannot get away by merely stating that the site plan filed by the plaintiff was incorrect. Reliance in this regard is placed on V. S. RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 33 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:34 +0530 Sachdeva Vs. M. L. Grover, 67 1997 DLT 737, Krishan Gupta Vs. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta, 2008 152 DLT 556 and Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram & Ors., 2014 144 DRJ 633. Accordingly, the contention of the defendant is rejected.
71) In the para no.17 of the impugned judgment, the Ld. Trial Court has returned a specific finding that, " Therefore, the defence of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property does not stand."
72) This court is in agreement with the finding of Ld. Trial Court; and this court also returns a specific finding, for the following given reasons, that the plaintiff has been able to establish a much better title qua the property, including the suit property, in comparison to the defendant.
73) The sale deed Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), as per which Smt. Saroj Gupta has sold the property, including the suit property, to the plaintiff, has been filed and relied upon by the plaintiff.
74) It is undisputed and admitted that Smt. Saroj Gupta is daughter of predecessor-in-interest of the property Smt Savitri Devi. From the documents placed on record by the defendant itself, i.e. Ex.PW1/D1, the right title and interest of Smt. Saroj Gupta in the suit property stands duly established.
75) Moreover, the Sale Deed Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) is a registered document, carrying with it the presumption of authenticity and due Registration Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 87 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) provided that, "If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 34 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:39 +0530 evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. [PROVIDED that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Registration Act, 1908 unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."
76) Although, the defendant has pleaded in his written statement that the sale deed is forged and fabricated; however he has not averred, and proved any facts and circumstances to establish any forgery or fabrication, whatsoever, in execution of the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
77) The defendant has not examined Smt Saroj Gupta in his defence. Thus, there is no specific denial of execution of the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) by the person by whom it purports to have been executed.
78) Thus, the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) stands duly proved;
and it is established that Smt. Saroj Gupta sold the property, including the suit property, to the plaintiff vide sale deed Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
79) Thus, on the basis of Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) the plaintiff is the owner of the property, including the suit property, and carries a better title than the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is well within his rights to take the possession of the suit property from the defendant by due process of law.
80) This court is in absolute agreement with the observations of Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 35 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:44 +0530 Ld. Trial Court, made in para no.17 of the impugned judgment that, "the burden of proving that the defendant was a statutory tenant under the DRC Act was on the defendant". However, this court slightly differs from the further observations made by the Ld. Trial Court, that, "He (defendant) was required to establish from the documentary proof that he was a tenant protected under DRC Act and not merely a permissive user".
81) Undoubtedly, the defendant may/could have proved through documentary evidence, such as Rent Deed, or Rent Receipts etc. that he was a protected tenant under the DRC Act, and not merely a permissive user. However, in the opinion of this court, proof of tenancy, in the absence of documentary proof, may also very well be proved on the basis of ocular evidence, admitted facts and other established facts and circumstances of the case; and proof of same by documentary evidence alone is not the sole means.
82) The defendant in his cross-examination as DW1 conducted on 19.05.2018, to the question put on behalf of the plaintiff stated that, "It is wrong to suggest that I was never inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. I have not filed any rent receipt or rent agreement on record. Vol: As already stated by me in the affidavit of evidence, I have not filed the same as no rent receipt was ever issued to me by Smt. Savitri Devi and her daughter Smt Usha Devi.
I have not placed on record any rent agreement as an oral tenancy had been created in my favour by Smt Savitri Devi and there was no formal documentation of the same. It is wrong to suggest that I have not placed on record any rent receipt or rent agreement as I had never been inducted as a tenant in the suit property".
83) At this juncture, even at the sake of being repetitive, it is apt RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 36 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:50 +0530 and necessary to mention that the plaintiff, before becoming the owner of the property, including the suit property, was initially inducted as a tenant in the property by Smt. Savitri Devi; and he continued to be a tenant in the property till he purchased it from Smt. Saroj Devi.
84) With respect to the assertions made by the defendant, that, he was inducted as tenant in the suit property on the basis of oral tenancy; and the earlier owner of the suit property Smt Savitri Devi was not issuing receipts, the answers given by the plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW1 are extremely relevant.
85) The plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW1 conducted on 26.08.2015 stated that, "Smt Savitri Devi used to live in Bombay in the year 1986." Further, that, "I do not know in which year Savitri Devi died, however she might have died in the year 1989. Smt Savitri Devi continued residing in Bombay till her death.".
However, I do not know whether she died in Bombay or not or at which place she died.
Further that, "The rent of my tenanted premises on the ground floor and the first floor was though monthly but during her lifetime Smt Savitri Devi and after her death Smt Saroj Gupta used to come half yearly or yearly to collect the rent from me and other tenants. They used to issue rent receipts but I have not placed any rent receipts on the court record. (Vol: I had not felt it necessary to place the rent receipts on record.) There was no rent agreement or lease deed executed between myself and one hand and Smt Savitri Devi and Saroj Gupta on the other hand when the respective tenancies were created.
86) The above-noted admission made by the plaintiff in his RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 37 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:17:56 +0530 cross-examination, that, he was also inducted as a tenant in the property on the basis of oral tenancy, like the defendant claims to have been inducted as tenant, adds credibility and credence to the claim of the defendant, that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property on the basis of an oral tenancy. Thus, there was no occasion for the defendant to have placed on record any Rent Agreement, just like the plaintiff.
87) Furthermore, the failure of the plaintiff to place on record, and prove according to the required legal standards, the Rent Receipts issued by Smt Savitri Devi, or by Smt Saroj Gupta, as claimed by him in his cross-examination, directly suggest an inference that no rent receipts were issued to the plaintiff by Smt. Savitri Devi, or Saroj Gupta while he was a tenant in the property.
88) Moreover, the failure of plaintiff to examine any other person in occupation of the property, who were inducted as tenants therein by Smt Savitri, or Saroj Gupta to establish that the plaintiff and defendant were exceptions, but all other tenant were inducted on the basis of written Rent Deeds, and were also issued rent receipts, suggest that all the other tenants in the property, who subsequently became tenants of plaintiff, were also inducted in the property by erstwhile owners on the basis of oral tenancy; and no rent receipt were issued to them as well.
89) The Ld. Trial Court, in para No.18 of the impugned judgment observed that, "It is pertinent to mention that during the cross-examination of the defendant, the plaintiff confronted the defendant with Rent Receipts Ex.DW1/X1 to Ex.DW1/X8 which were issued to the plaintiff (as the plaintiff was also a tenant in the property earlier) as well as the other tenants."
RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 38 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:01 +0530
90) At the outset it is pertinent to note that Ex.DW1/X1 and Ex.DW1/X8 are beyond pleadings made by the plaintiff in his plaint; and beyond the evidence led by the plaintiff. During the cross-examination of the defendant as DW1 on 14.03.2019, the defendant was confronted with said Rent Receipts. His cross-
examination records; "At this stage witness is confronted with Original Rent Receipts dated 01.02.1993, 01.02.1993, 22.02.1990, 26.10.1991, 01.10.1984, 01.04.1985, 16.04.1987 and 24.03.1992. I am not aware whether the aforesaid rent receipts were issued by Savitri Devi or Saroj Gupta (Question objected to by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the same are in the name of third party and the plaintiff is neither the beneficiary not a signatory objection declined). The said rent receipt are now exhibited Ex.D1/X1 to Ex.D1/X8 (OSR)"
91) The details and particulars of Ex.D1/X1 to Ex.D1/X8 (OSR) are tabulated hereunder; viz S. Exhibit Rent receipt Rent Rent Rent paid Rent No. for period Paid by receipt issued by
1. Ex.DW1/ 01.08.1993 Rs. 500 Rs. Madhav Saroj X-1 to per 3000/- Proprietor Gupta 31.01.1994 month Mrs Anita Bhutani
2. Ex.DW1/ 01.02.1993 Rs. 500 Rs. Madhav Saroj X-2 to per 3000/- handloom, Gupta 31.07.1993 month proprietor Ms. Anita Bhutani
3. Ex.DW1/ 36.06.1987 Rs. 60/- Rs. Laxmi Saroj X-3 (overwriting per 1980/- Vishnu Gupta ) to month Textiles 30.03.1990
4. Ex.DW1/ 01.04.1990 Rs. 60/- Rs. Laxmi Saroj X-4 to per 1440/- Vishnu Gupta 31.03.1992 month Textiles RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 39 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:05 +0530
5. Ex.DW1/ 01.04.1992 Rs.70/- Rs. Laxmi Saroj X-5 to per 840/- Vishnu Gupta 31.03.1993 month Textiles
6. Ex.DW1/ 01.10.1984 Rs. 60/- Rs. Laxmi Savitri X-6 to per 360/- Vishnu Devi 31.03.1985 month Textiles
7. Ex.DW1/ 01.04.1985 Not Rs. Laxmi Savitri X-7 to mentione 360/- Vishnu Devi 30.09.1985 d Textiles
8. Ex.DW1/ 01.10.1985 Rs. 60/- Rs. Laxmi Saroj X-8 to per 1260 Vishnu Gupta 30.06.1987 month Textiles
92) The plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW1 conducted on 26.08.2015 stated that, "I do not know who were the the other tenants in the property in the year 1986 when I had taken the ground floor on rent. I gained the knowledge of other tenants in the year 1994 when I purchased the said property. Between the year 1986 to 1994, I was continuously running a business of trading in cloth from the ground floor shop. The first floor portion was being continuously used by me for godown after it was taken on rent by me prior to 1994. In the year 1994, I came to know that firm Bansi Lal Dinesh Kumar, Ram Lubhaya Shyam Sunder and Arjun Singh & Sons were occupying the shops at the ground floor as tenants and Sh. Arvind Kumar Adhukia was an unauthorized occupant on the second floor of the property and on the third floor Sh. Moti Lal Jain was a tenant in the property".
93) The rent receipts Ex.DW1/X1 to Ex.DW1/X6, none of them pertains to either Bansi Lal Dinesh Kumar; Ram Lubhaya Shyam Sunder and Arjun Singh & Sons; or Moti Lal Jain, who, according to the plaintiff, were tenants in the other portions of the property at the time, during which, the plaintiff first became a tenant in the Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 40 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:10 +0530 property till he became the owner of it; i.e. the period between 1986 to 1994.
94) The plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW1 conducted on 30.03.2016 admitted that, "It is correct that at the time of execution of the sale deed on 09.02.1994, I was running two proprietorship firms namely M/s Laxmi Vishnu Textiles and Madhav Handlooms from the ground floor and first floor of the aforesaid property in which the suit premises is situated.
95) At this juncture, it is apt and expedient to refer exhibits, i.e. Ex.DW1/X1 and Ex.DW1/X2 which are the receipts of rent issued by Smt. Saroj Gupta towards the rent paid by Madhav Handlooms. Both the receipts categorically record Mrs. Anita Bhutani as proprietor of Madhav Handlooms. Both the receipts categorically record Ms. Anita Bhutani as proprietor of Madhav Handlooms.
96) In the eyes of law a proprietorship concern and its proprietor are not two separate, distinct, independent Juristic entities. They are one and the same person. The proprietorship concern exists only for tax/business purposes. However, it is the proprietor only who exists in the eyes of law.
97) Ex.DW1/X1 and Ex.DW1/X2 have been placed on record by the plaintiff himself, therefore, he cannot challenge them. Thus, as Ex.DW1/X1 and Ex.DW1/X2 records Ms. Anita Bhutani as proprietor of Madhav Handlooms, therefore, these two receipts falsifies the testimony of the plaintiff as PW1, wherein he has stated that he was running the proprietorship Madhav Handlooms from the property.
98) It is only either Mrs. Anita Bhutani, proprietor of Madhav Handlooms, or Smt Saroj Gupta who could have proved RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 41 of 50 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:14 +0530 Ex.DW1/X1 and Ex.DW1/X2 during the trial. In the absence of their examination during the trial, both Ex.DW1/X1 and Ex.DW1/X2 have gone totally unproved. Thus, no reliance can be placed on them.
99) Further Ex.DW1/X3 to Ex.DW1/8 are rent receipts issued to Laxmi Vishun Textiles. Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 are issued by Savitri Devi; and the rest of the receipts are issued by Saroj Gupta.
None of these receipts records the name of the proprietor. There is nothing on record to show that plaintiff was proprietor of Ms. Laxmi Vishnu Textiles. Moreover, Smt. Saroj Gupta, the author of these receipts has not been examined during trial. Likewise, the receipts issued by Smt. Savitri Devi have also not been proved as per law by proving her signatures, since she has already died.
100) Furthermore, a bare perusal of Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7; i.e. the rent receipts purportedly issued by Smt. Savitri Devi in favour of M/s Laxmi Vishnu Textiles reflect that the signatures of Smt. Savitri Devi thereon do not match, rather are absolutely distinct from the signatures of Smt. Savitri Devi on her Will, which is on record and marked as Mark DA.
101) The Will of Savitri Devi, Mark DA is dated 14.08.1986. Both the parties have admitted it and have relied on it. Thus, none of the parties dispute signatures of Smt. Savitri Devi on her Will dated 14.08.1986, i.e. Mark DA.
102) A bare perusal of Mark DA reflects impeccable signatures of the testator Savitri Devi; whereas Ex.DW1/X6 and Ex.DW1/X7 (receipts) issued prior to 1986 i.e. on 01.10.1984 and 01.041985 respectively reflect irregularities and clear consistencies in the signatures of Savitri Devi, not only in comparison with Mark DA, Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 42 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:18 +0530 but amongst Ex.DW1/X6 and Ex.DW1/X7 as well.
103) Comparison of signatures of Savitri Devi on her WILL; i.e. Mark DA and with Ex.Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 do not call for any expert opinion to arrive at the conclusion that the signatures differ and are inconsistent. Exercise of Powers of this court, conferred under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (72 of the Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023) is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion with certainty that, the signatures on three documents i.e. Mark DA, Ex.D1/X6 and Ex.D1/X7 are distinct from each other. By a mere glance the same is established, and it do not call for application of any advance technology to arrive at the conclusion of difference in signatures on three documents purported to be done by one and same person.
104) Moreover, as discussed earlier, the plaintiff during his cross-
examination conducted on 26.08.2015 stated that, "they used to issue rent receipts but I have not placed any rent receipts on court record. (Vol: I had not felt it necessary to place the rent receipts on record)".
105) After 26.08.2015, the further cross-examination of the plaintiff as PW1 was conducted on four different occasions i.e. on 02.12.2015, 04.12.2015, 30.03.2016 and 13.07.2016. Further, the entire plaintiff evidence was finally closed on 28.09.2016. And, all this while, when the plaintiff had adequate opportunity, at the appropriate stage of plaintiff evidence to produce the rent receipts, i.e. Ex.DW1/X1, Ex.DW1/X8, however, the plaintiff did not felt it necessary to place them on record, and prove them in accordance with set legal standards during the stage of plaintiff evidence.
106) However, as a matter of surprise, the plaintiff produced Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 43 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:23 +0530 Ex.DW1/X1 to Ex.DW1/X8 only during the cross-examination of the defendant as DW1. Perhaps, only to avoid himself being cross- examined qua Ex.DW1/X1 to Ex.DW1/X8.
107) This Court has no hesitation to put it straight on record that rent receipts Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 do not inspire any confidence of this Court; and on a prima-facie glance, the said rent receipts appear to be manufactured, as an after thought to support the case of the plaintiff. However, they do not support the case of the plaintiff at all.
108) As Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 prima-facie appear to be tainted documents, therefore, they also directly put shadow of doubt on other Rent Receipts also placed on record by the plaintiff.
Moreover, considering the timing and stage of placing these receipts on record, they have not been tested during trial, and have not passed the test of cross-examination.
109) Accordingly, in view of the above done discussion, in the proceeding paragraphs pertaining to the Rent Receipts Ex.DW1/X1 to Ex.DW1/X8, all the said receipts deserve to be discarded.
110) Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), i.e. the Sale Deed filed and relied upon by the plaintiff categorically records the status of the defendant in the suit property as that of 'unauthorized tenant'.
111) The plaintiff has vehemently argued that the phrase 'unauthorized tenant' in the sale deed, in the absence of any rent mentioned against the name of the defendant categorically suggest that the defendant is unauthorized occupant in the suit property.
112) The learned trial Court in para-20 of the impugned judgment has accepted the contentions of the plaintiff and has observed that, " the phrase 'unauthorized tenant' has been used by private parties Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 44 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:27 +0530 in the sale deed and therefore, the said phrase can also be interpreted to mean 'unauthorized occupant'.
113) This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the plaintiff, as well as the observations made by the learned trial Court that the phrase 'unauthorized tenant' used by the private parties in a sale deed, can also be interpreted to mean 'unauthorized occupant'.
114) Ex.PW1/1 i.e. sale deed is a document created between the plaintiff and the predecessor in interest of the suit property Smt. Saroj Gupta, the defendant had no control, or authority over the said document, while the same was being prepared. Thus, there was no occasion for the defendant to have known that as to how the parties in a private sale deed are representing him, with respect to his status in the suit property.
115) The plaintiff has argued that if the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 adversely affected the defendant, then it was incumbent on the defendant to have taken steps as per law, making a challenge against the sale deed and seek its cancellation. However, the defendant has not taken any steps towards the cancellation of the said sale deed.
116) In the opinion of the Court, the defendant did not had any locus standi to challenge the sale deed and seeks it cancellation.
Ex.PW1/1 is executed between the plaintiff and the predecessor in interest of the suit property Smt. Saroj Gupta, and the defendant is alien/stranger to the transaction between the two parties, and had nothing to do with the sale transaction that had taken place between the said parties.
Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 45 of 50 2026.04.29 17:18:32 +0530
117) However, if the sale deed did not represent correctly the status of the defendant in it, then, instead of defendant, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have sought rectification of the sale deed and get the requisite phrase representing the defendant as 'unauthorized tenant' changed/rectified to that of 'unauthorized occupant'. However, no such steps towards the rectification of the sale deed were ever taken by the plaintiff.
118) The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.PW1/1 i.e. Sale Deed, therefore, he cannot challenge the same. The sale deed clearly represents the true intention of the parties entering into transaction between them. Perusal of the sale deed reflects that it is not riddled with any ambiguity. Therefore, the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 deserves to be taken on its face value.
119) In this view, this Court is not in agreement with the observations made by the learned trial Court in para-20 of the impugned judgment, whereby, the learned trial Court discarded the submissions of the defendant that in view of Section 91 & 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the plaintiff was barred from giving any oral explanations and contracting the terms of the sale deed.
120) At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the onus to prove that the defendant was inducted as a mere licensee/permissive user in the suit property was directly upon the plaintiff. As already discussed, this could have been proved only by Smt. Saroj Gupta or by her late mother Smt. Savitri Devi, who inducted the defendant in the suit property.
121) Although, Smt. Saroj Gupta has not been examined by the plaintiff to establish that the defendant was inducted as a licensee in the suit property, there is also no averments in the plaint which Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 46 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:37 +0530 may reflect or suggest the circumstances in which the defendant was inducted in the suit property; i.e. whether the defendant was known to the parties, or related to the parties in any manner etc. whatsoever.
122) It is stated in the plaint that the defendant was inducted in the suit property, to look after the second floor of the property.
However, the plaint and the evidence led by the plaintiff are absolutely shorn off facts to show that, in what manner the defendant, if at all, used to take care of the second floor of the suit property.
123) The entire property, including the suit property is a commercial property, and it is undisputed that from the shops on the ground floor, and on the other floors of the suit property, the commercial business were being running. In this view, it is highly improbable that the entire second floor of the suit property was given to the defendant as a mere permissive user to only look after the second floor. In terms of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, it appears to be against the course of natural human conduct.
124) On the basis of the above done discussion, and particularly in view of the fact that the defendant is clearly referred as a 'tenant', even if as an unauthorized one in the suit property, in the documents filed and relied upon by the plaintiff himself, thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to contend that the defendant was a mere licensee in the suit property, without having rectified the Sale Deed.
125) Considering the evidence led by the parties and considering the observations made by the learned trial Court in para-21 of its judgment regarding the defendant residing in Katmandu, Hong-
Digitally RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 47 of 50 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:42 +0530 Kong, and taking other premises on rent in Delhi, without showing the suit property as residence, this Court is satisfied, that although the defendant had taken the suit property on rent, but he was neither residing there, nor was using the same. This is established by the fact that the defendant has failed to lead any evidence to show that he was running business from the suit premises, as claimed by him, and because he has also not shown the Rent paid qua the suit property in his ITRs for the relevant period.
126) It is therefore, as the defendant had taken the suit property on rent, but still was not utilizing the same, he has been described as 'unauthorized tenant' in the sale deed, and therefore, no amount of rent has been mentioned against him in the sale deed.
127) As the plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus that the defendant was a mere permissive user/licensee in the suit property, therefore, on the basis of the preponderance of probability and in the light of the above done discussions, this Court safely and surely arrives at the conclusion that the defendant was a tenant in the suit property.
128) As per the case of the plaintiff himself, for the portions which he had taken on rent in the property carried a rent much less than Rs.3,500/-. Therefore, on the basis of the preponderance of probability, this Court comes to the conclusion at the relevant point of time, the rent of the defendant qua the suit property was also less than Rs.3,500/-.
129) Accordingly, this Court arrives at a conclusion that on the basis of evidence led in this matter, the defendant has been able to establish on the threshold of pre-ponderence of probability that he Digitally signed by RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 48 of 50 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:46 +0530 is a statutory tenant in the suit property, under the provisions of DRC Act.
130) Even if the defendant is not residing in the suit property, or not using it, but as he has taken property on rent which is less than Rs.3,000/- then he is prevented under the provision of DRC Act, and, therefore, he can be evicted only as per the applicable provisions of DRC Act; but not by filing a suit for possession.
131) Henceforth, on the basis of the above done discussion, the finding returned by the Learned Trial Court qua the Issue no.1 that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit premises holding that the defendant is licensee/permissive user in the suit property is hereby set aside; and the finding given by the Learned Trial Court qua Issue no.4 that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred under Section 50 of DRC Act as the defendant is not a statutory tenant in the suit premises as per provision of DRC Act is also set aside.
132) In view of the above done discussion, Issue No.1 framed by this Court is now, decided against the plaintiff that he is not entitled to the suit property by way of the present suit as he has not been able to establish that the defendant was inducted in the suit property as a mere permissive user/licensee.
133) Accordingly, Issue No.4 is decided in favour of defendant and it is held that defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property for a monthly rent less than Rs.3,500/-. Therefore, the defendant is a statutory tenant in the suit property protected under the provision of DRC Act.
134) Therefore, this court arrived at the conclusion, that the suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred under the provision of DRC Act. Digitally signed by SUMEET RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 49 of 50 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.04.29 17:18:50 +0530
135) Accordingly, the First Appeal filed by the defendant is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2024 is hereby set asided. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff for Possession, Damages and Mense Profit is hereby dismissed.
136) The suit of the plaintiff having been dismissed, consequently all other findings of the Ld. Trial Court qua Damages and Mesne Profits; and all other directions, as well qua the damages and mesne profits are hereby set asided.
137) Likewise, the order of imposition of realistic cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) imposed by the Ld. Trial Court on the defendant is also hereby set asided.
138) The First Appeal accordingly stands disposed off as allowed.
139) Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith Trial Court record.
140) Nothing else survives in the present appeal. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance of rules.
141) Judgment be uploaded online under digital signatures of the undersigned. This Judgment contains 50 number of pages.
Digitally signed SUMEET by SUMEET
ANAND
ANAND Date: 2026.04.29
17:18:58 +0530
Announced in the open court (SUMEET ANAND)
on 28.04.2026 DJ-11, Central District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
RCA DJ No. 169/2024 Page No. 50 of 50