Delhi District Court
Smt Sunita Rani Sharma vs Smt Aarti And Anr on 21 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-006255-2020
CS DJ No. 690/2020
In the matter of :-
Sunita Rani Sharma,
W/o Sh. Jagdish Chand Sharma,
R/o H. No. 480, Baba Farid Puri,
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Aarti
W/o Sh. Mohit @ Monty,
R/o House No. 480, G.F. (Back Portion),
Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
2. Deepak Kumar
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan,
R/o H. No. 133, Baba Farid Puri,
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
..... Defendants
Date of institution : 09.12.2020
Reserved for judgment : 20.11.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 21.11.2025
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DAMAGES
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for decree of possession, damages and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Succinctly put, CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 1/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:50:49 +0530 the case of plaintiff is that she is the owner of property bearing no. 480, Baba Farid Puri, New Delhi, comprising of built-up floors from ground floor to third floor. She had given the ground floor (back portion) of the said property comprising of one room set (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') to defendant no. 2 (for short 'D-2') for a period of three months from January 2020 to March 2020 on monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- on oral agreement. Defendant no. 1 (for short 'D-1'), sister of D-2, came to the above tenanted premises for helping D-2 in household work. Since February 2020, D-2 did not pay the rent. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, there was lockdown in the country and defendants continued to stay in the said premises. In June 2020, the plaintiff told D-2 to vacate the premises and also to pay the rent and electricity charges. D-2 was ready to vacate the premises, but he said that he was not in a position to pay the rent and electricity charges. On 27.06.2020, the plaintiff made a police complaint against D-1 regarding incidents dated 10.06.2020 and 25.06.2020 of misbehavior, non-vacation, criminal trespass and threatening to her and her family. On 03.07.2020, D-1 filed a false police complaint against husband of the plaintiff at PS Anand Parbat in order to extort money from her. Thereafter, plaintiff too made police complaints dated 07.07.2020 to DCP, the Commissioner of Police and Human Rights Commission against D-1 for criminal trespass, extortion etc.
2. It has been further averred that D-2 came to the plaintiff in the last week of July 2020 and told her that he was not residing at the above tenanted premises and asked her to handle D-1 herself. On 23.07.2020, defendants had started fight with the plaintiff and her husband and CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 2/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:50:57 +0530 police was called. The police booked a case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and a Kalandara was lodged against the defendants, plaintiff and her husband. The said proceedings were pending in SEM (Special Executive Magistrate) Court. D-1 had also filed a false civil suit against the husband of plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining him from her forceful dispossession from the premises without due process of law. The husband of plaintiff submitted before the Court [in the said case] that D-1 was not his tenant, but a criminal trespasser. However, he stated before the Court that he would not dispossess D-1 from the suit property without due process of law.
3. It has been further averred that D-2 had left and vacated the tenanted premises, but D-1 still illegally occupied the same as a criminal trespasser. She had not vacated the premises despite repeated requests of the plaintiff. She is liable to pay damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month from February 2020 as usage charges for illegally occupying the said premises. The plaintiff had also sent a legal notice dated 23.09.2020 for vacation of the suit premises, which was duly received by D-1. But, despite receipt of the said notice, D-1 had neither vacated the suit property nor given any reply. On 05.10.2020, after receiving the said legal notice, D-1 alongwith other persons attacked the plaintiff and when her son and husband tried to save her, they were also beaten and injured. D-1 has also lodged a false FIR bearing no. 290/2020 at PS Anand Parbat against the son and husband of plaintiff to extort money from her. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for decree of possession of the suit property, mesne profits @ Rs.5,000/- per month and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest over the suit property.
CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 3/23
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21
16:51:05
+0530
4. In their written statement, the defendants have raised preliminary objections that the present suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as D-2 was not at all a necessary party. Further, there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff as D-1 was residing in the suit property against security deposit of a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- paid to the husband of plaintiff. Further, the suit property was situated on the government land and the annexed documents did not prove the ownership of plaintiff. On merits, the defendants have further submitted that initially, the suit property was given on rent to the defendant, but subsequently, [possession was given] against the security deposit of sum of Rs.2,20,000/- paid by D-1 to the husband of plaintiff on 15.12.2019. The husband of plaintiff had posed himself as the owner of property. D-2 was merely residing with D-1 being her brother. It is D-1 who paid the abovesaid security deposit. The defendants have further denied all allegations made by the plaintiff against them in her plaint.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15.11.2021:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of part portion of property bearing H. No. 480, ground floor, back portion (comprising of one room set) Baba Faridpuri, New Delhi as shown red in colour in the site plan attached by the plaintiff as prayed? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of damages @ Rs. 5000/- per month since February, 2020 till vacation of the suit property, as prayed? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP.CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 4/23
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:11 +0530
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as she is not the owner of the suit property and the suit property is situated on Government Land?
OPD.
5. Relief
6. To prove her case, the plaintiff examined three witnesses. PW-1 is the plaintiff herself. She tendered her evidence affidavit as PW-1/A. She submitted on the similar lines as stated by her in her plaint. She relied upon the following documents:-
1. GPA, Deed of agreement, Receipt, Will and Affidavit all dated 20.03.1992 are Ex.PW1/1 (Colly).
2. Police complaint dated 27.06.2020 is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Complaint to DCP, West District dated 07.07.2020 is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Complaint to the Commissioner of Police dated
07.07.2020 is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Complaint to the Human Rights Commission dated 07.07.2020 is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Complaint to the Commissioner of Police dated 21.07.2020 is Ex.PW1/6.
7. Notice under Section 107/111 Cr.PC is Ex.PW1/7. Photocopy of Kallandra vide DD No. 59A dated 23.07.2020 is Mark J.
8. Legal notice dated 23.09.2020 alongwith postal receipt is Ex.PW1/8 (colly).
9. Site plan is Ex.PW1/13.
CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 5/23
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21
16:51:16
+0530
10.Copies of summons and suit filed defendant No. 1 vide Civil Suit No. 625/2020 are Mark A (colly).
11.Copy of order dated 11.09.2020 [in the said civil suit] is Mark B.
12.Complaint to the SDM is Ex.PW1/14.
13.Copy of complaint to SHO, PS Anand Parbat, Mark D. There were no documents Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/12 as per affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendants.
7. PW-2 is Sh. J. P. Sharma, husband of the plaintiff and PW-3 is Sh. Bacchu Singh, neighbor of the plaintiff. They tendered their evidence affidavits as PW-2/A and Ex.PW-3/A, respectively. They submitted on the similar lines as stated by the plaintiff in her plaint. They were cross-examined on behalf of the defendants. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 08.07.2025.
8. To prove their defence, the defendants examined two witnesses. DW-1 is the defendant no. 1. She tendered her evidence affidavit as DW-1/1. She submitted on the similar lines as stated by the defendants in their written statement. She has additionally stated that the present suit was barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act as the plaintiff has stated that the suit property had been given on rent to D-2 on monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. DW-1 relied upon the following documents :-
1. Copy of Plaint in civil suit bearing no. 625/20 titled as Aarti v. J. P. Sharma as Mark-A.
2. Copy of order dated 11.09.2020 already marked as Mark-
B on 24.11.2022 filed by the plaintiff.
CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 6/23Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:22 +0530
3. Copy of General Diary with Kalandra dated 23.07.2020 as Mark-C.
4. Copy of Statement of Ms. Aarti in the above Kalandra dated 03.07.2020 as Mark-D and Mark E. DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
9. DW-2 is Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma, Ahlmad in the Court of Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court-03), West District, Tis Hazari Courts. He tendered the summoned record i.e. Original case file of FIR No. 290/2020, PS Anand Parbat titled as 'State v. Hariom Sharma and Ors.'. The certified copy of FIR no. 290/2020 is Ex.DW-2/A. He tendered statement of Aarti recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 06.10.2020 as Ex.DW-2/B and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 08.10.2020 as Ex.DW-2/C. He was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 10.10.2025.
10. Final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsels for the parties. Record has been perused. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has proved that she had given the suit property on rent to D-2 in January 2020. D-1 had come to reside with D-2, who vacated the suit premises in the last week of July 2020. But, D-1 continued to reside in the suit property as criminal trespasser despite several requests of the plaintiff to her to vacate the premises. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property. Further, the defendant no. 2 has not paid rent of the suit property since February 2020. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month since CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 7/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:27 +0530 February 2020 till vacation of the suit property. Ld. Counsel has further argued that D-1 is not entitled to the protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act as D-2 was the tenant of plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the present suit against D-1 as a trespasser not as a tenant. Moreover, the defendants have not raised any objection in this regard in their written statement and introduced this aspect only in the evidence affidavit of DW-1, which was beyond their pleadings.
11. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has argued that the present suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act as it is the admitted case of plaintiff that she had given the suit property to D-2 on monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. He has relied upon following precedent in support of his argument i.e. Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. Bani Jagtiani Trust, 107 (2003) DLT 58. Ld. Counsel has further argued that even if the defendants had not raised this aspect in their written statement, the same being a legal issue can be put forward at the stage of final arguments. Thus, the present plaint shall be rejected. He has relied upon the following precedent in support of his argument i.e. Smt. Patasibai v. Ratan Lal, JT 1990 (3) SC 68. He has further argued that even otherwise, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the possession of suit property without refund of security deposit of Rs.2,20,000/- given by D-1 to her husband. Thus, the present suit shall be dismissed.
12. Issue-wise findings are as follows:-
Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of part portion of property bearing H. No. 480, ground floor, back portion CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 8/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:32 +0530 (comprising of one room set) Baba Faridpuri, New Delhi as shown red in colour in the site plan attached by the plaintiff as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for defendant has raised an issue that the present suit is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as the plaintiff herself has claimed in the plaint that D-2 was her tenant for the suit property on monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- per month. Before proceeding to deliberate upon this aspect, it is required to give findings on the other related aspects.
13. First of all, the Court proceeds to examine the case of plaintiff and thereafter, the defence of defendants would be analyzed. In nutshell, the plaintiff has claimed that in January, 2020, she had given the suit property on rent to D-2. Thereafter, in February 2020, D-1/Sister of D-2 came to the premises for helping him in household work. Subsequently, in the last week of July 2020, D-2 told the plaintiff that he was not residing at the tenanted premises and she (plaintiff) should handle D-1 herself. Thereafter, D-1 is occupying the suit property as illegal trespasser.
14. During cross-examination of the plaintiff/PW-1, she reiterated that D-2 had been inducted as tenant in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- excluding electricity charges. She admitted the suggestion put to her that at the time of induction of D-2, there was electricity and water connection in the rented accommodation which was later on disconnected in the year 2021. The above version of PW-1 shows that she remained consistent and firm on the aspect that the suit property had been given on rent to D-2. The defendants could not bring anything CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 9/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:36 +0530 on record during her cross-examination to negate her claim in this regard. However, the suggestions regarding the defence of defendants were put to PW-1, to which she has categorically denied. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that PW-1 has tendered the complaints moved to the police authorities i.e. complaint dated 27.06.2020 to SHO PS Anand Parbat, Ex.PW-1/2, dated 07.07.2020 to DCP, Ex.PW-1/3, dated 21.07.2020 to the Commissioner of Police, Ex.PW-1/6, wherein it had been specifically mentioned that the suit premises had been given on rent to D-2/Deepak. The defendants during cross-examination of PW-1 did not specifically controvert this aspect mentioned in the abovesaid communications. The said communications lead to infer that the plaintiff had been consistent in her stand that it was D-2 to whom the suit premises were given on rent. Even in the legal notice dated 23.09.2020 sent to D-1, Ex.PW-1/8, it was stated on behalf of the plaintiff that suit property had been given on rent to D-2 for a period of three months.
15. One important aspect is worth mentioning here itself that in their written statement to the corresponding para no. 7 of the plaint, wherein it has been stated that D-2 told the plaintiff in last week of July 2020 that he was not residing at the suit property, the defendants have merely responded that 'contents of the corresponding para of the plaint under reply is a matter of record. However, the police complaints made by the plaintiff to the various authorities are totally false, fabricated and defamatory in nature'. This version itself indicates the admission on part of defendants about the version of plaintiff that D-2 had left the tenanted premises in the last week of July 2020. Moreover, the above CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 10/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:41 +0530 version of the plaintiff/PW-1 was not specifically controverted by the defendants during her cross-examination too.
16. In this regard, the case of defendants is that D-1 had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction, Mark-A, against the husband of plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing D-1 herein from the suit property. In the said suit, the husband of plaintiff had made a statement that he would not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law and thereafter, the said suit was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2020, Mark-B. It has been argued on behalf of defendants that in the said suit, plaintiff therein/D-1 herein had claimed herself to be the tenant of husband of plaintiff herein. Thus, this negates the claim of plaintiff herein that she had given suit premises on rent to D-2. It is pretinent to note that the order dated 11.09.2020, Mark-B reflects that written statement had already been filed on behalf of defendant in the said suit. The defendants herein should have filed the copy of written statement filed in that suit to show what was the stand of husband of plaintiff in response to the claim made by the plaintiff therein/D-1 herein. Accordingly, this argument of admission made by husband of plaintiff regarding D-1 to be his tenant in the earlier litigation is not tenable. Filing of the copy of written statement of the previous suit no. 625/2020 becomes more important as in para no. 7 of the present plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that her husband had submitted [in that suit] that D-1 was not his tenant, but a criminal trespasser. But, the defendants did not file the same for the reasons best known to them.
CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 11/23Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:48 +0530
17. Coming back to the plaintiff's evidence in the present suit, the plaintiff has examined her husband as PW-2. During his cross-
examination, he has also reiterated that D-2 was inducted as a tenant in the suit property in January 2020. At the time of induction as tenant, D-2 paid only Rs.3,500/- to his wife (plaintiff). He admitted the suggestion put to him that at the time of induction of D-2 as tenant, the temporarily meter for amenity of electricity and water was provided to him for three months. He further deposed that however, the sub-meter for electricity was provided by him (PW-2) to D-2. Due to non-payment of rent by D-2, the electricity and water amenity were disconnected by them. He admitted the suggestion that D-1 and her minor son started living with D-2 after some days of induction of D-2 as tenant. It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination of PW-2, the defendants deviated from their stand that it was D-1 who had given security deposit to him (PW-2) in lieu of creation of tenancy over the suit property and rather, it was suggested to him that he (PW-2) demanded security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- from D-2/Deepak Kumar. It is worth noting that during his cross-examination too, it was not put to him that in the previous suit filed by D-1 against him, Mark-A, he (PW-2) had admitted that the suit premises were given on rent by him to D-1. Thus, from the above version of PW-2, it is made out that he too remained consistent and firm on the aspect that the suit property had been given on rent to D-2 for a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. It is reiterated that during his cross-examination, the version of PW-2 made in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-2/A about D-2 not residing in the suit property since last week of July 2020 was not specifically controverted.
CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 12/23Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:54 +0530
18. The plaintiff has examined her neighbor as PW-3. He too submitted during his cross-examination that D-2 had taken the suit property on rent. He made it clear that D-1 had not taken the premises on rent. She had come to the premises after 25 days of giving it on rent to D-2. He deposed that there was electricity and water supply in the suit property when it was given on rent to D-2. There was no electricity and water supply in the suit property at present. He voluntarily stated that since D-2 had left the property earlier and thereafter, D-1 had also left after locking the same, that is why there was no electricity and water supply at present. He further deposed that D-2 had given one month rent i.e. Rs.3,500/- to the plaintiff in the month of January 2020 and thereafter, no rent was given by him. Accordingly, the above version of PW-3 shows that he too remained firm and consistent on his testimony made in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-3/A.
19. On this aspect, DW-1/D-1, during her cross-examination, deposed that she did not remember the exact date/month/year when she started residing in the suit property. She voluntarily stated that however, she started residing before the Covid-19 lockdown period. This version of DW-1 further strengthens the stand of plaintiff that D-1 had come to the suit property in the month of February 2020 against the claim of D-1 that she was tenant over the suit property since August 2019 (as per para no. 5 of the plaint of previous suit, Mark A). Judicial notice of this fact can be taken that the Covid-19 lockdown had been implemented from 25.03.2020.
20. Now, the Court proceeds to examine the stand of defendants. In their written statement, the defendants have categorically stated that CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 13/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:51:59 +0530 D-2 is not at all a necessary party between inter-se dispute, if any of the plaintiff and D-1. Further, initially the suit property was given on rent to the defendant, but subsequently against the security deposit of sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, out of which, D-1 paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to the husband of plaintiff on 15.12.2019. Further, D-2 is merely residing with D-1 being a brother. It is D-1 who paid the security deposit to the husband of plaintiff.
21. During her cross-examination, DW-1 has deposed that she did not have any receipt to show that she paid amount of Rs.2,20,000/- in cash to the husband of plaintiff. She voluntarily stated that he used to keep the payment diary with him only. She had not sent any legal notice for non-execution of any security agreement of Rs.2,20,000/- with regard to the security amount given to the plaintiff. She voluntarily stated that the husband of plaintiff at that time assured her that he would reduce the said security agreement in writing. She further deposed that in the suit property, her brother/D-2 never resided with her at any point of time.
22. It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination of PW-2 (to whom D-1 had allegedly made payment of Rs.2,20,000/- in lieu of security amount), it was put to him that security amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was paid to him in three instalments of Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and further, D-2 asked him to execute a security agreement after payment of balance amount of Rs.30,000/-.
The above suggestion was in contradiction with the stand of defendants in their written statement, wherein it was stated that the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- had been given on 15.12.2019. While suggestions were CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 14/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:05 +0530 put to the plaintiff's witnesses that the said amount was given in three instalments. Surprisingly, no specific dates were put to the witnesses as to when the said instalments were paid. It is not the case of defendants that the payment of said instalments or of even any one instalment had been witnessed by any person. Even otherwise, it is beyond comprehension that such a big amount was given by D-1 to the husband of plaintiff without getting a receipt in this regard. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the husband of plaintiff had promised to issue a receipt in this regard after having got balance amount of security of Rs.30,000/-. It is not the case of defendants that they had ever offered, or ready to pay, the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- to him and asked to issue a receipt. Furthermore, the Court is in agreement with the argument of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants or D-1 did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff or her husband asking for either issuance of the receipt of Rs.2,20,000/- or demanding their security amount back. Even in the present suit, the defendants or D-1 has not filed any counter claim seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- allegedly given by D-1 to the husband of plaintiff in lieu of security deposit for creation of the tenancy.
23. It is beyond comprehension as to why D-2 preferred not to appear in the witness box to challenge the claim of plaintiff, despite her specific plea that it was D-2 to whom the suit property was given on rent and D-1 is merely an illegal trespasser. This lapse becomes more grave when as per the claim of defendants, 'D-2 is residing with D-1 being a brother'. It means that non-examination of D-2 was out of CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 15/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:11 +0530 choice of the defendants, not due to the reason of his non-availability etc.
24. Considering the above observations, the defendants have not been able to prove their stand that the tenancy of the suit property had been created between D-1 and the husband of plaintiff and D-1 had made a payment of Rs.2,20,000/- to him in lieu of security deposit.
25. It is worth mentioning here itself that the defendants/DW-1 has relied upon a statement of D-1 recorded by the police on 23.07.2020, Mark-E, wherien she had inter-alia stated that she alongwith her elder brother Deepak and son aged about 3.5 years was residing at the suit property for nine months and the rate of rent is Rs.4,000/-. Thus, the said version of D-1 is not in consonance with the defence put forward by the defendants in their written statement, regarding the rate of monthly rent.
26. From the above discussion, it stands proved that the suit premises was given on rent by the plaintiff to D-2 in January 2020 for monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. Later on, D-1 came to the suit property to reside with D-2. Thereafter, in the last week of July 2020, D-2 told the plaintiff that he was not residing at the suit property. On other hand, the defendants have failed to prove their plea that tenancy over the suit property had been created in favour of D-1 in lieu of security deposit of Rs.2,20,000/- given to the husband of plaintiff.
27. Now, the question arises as to whether the present suit is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. First of all, it is pertinent CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 16/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:16 +0530 to note that in their written statement, the defendants did not raise any preliminary objection in this regard. The written statement had been filed by the defendants on 06.04.2021. It is only in the evidence affidavit of D-1, this plea was introduced, without having sought permission for amending the written statement. The evidence affidavit of D-1 was filed on 16.09.2025. Thus, this plea was raised after almost four and a half years of filing the written statement. Even otherwise, considering the said plea being a legal plea, it is worth noting that statutory protection could have been claimed by the defendant no. 2, but in their written statement, the defendants have categorically stated that D-2 is not at all a necessary party between interse dispute, if any, of the plaintiff and D-1. Thus, D-2 has denied jural relationship of tenant and landlord with the plaintiff. In the previous suit filed by D-1, Mark A, too, D-1 (not D-2) had claimed the jural relationship of tenant and landlord with the husband of plaintiff.
28. Above all, the defendants in para no. 4 of the preliminary objections of their written statement have stated that 'the suit property is situated on the government land and the annexed documents do not prove the ownership of plaintiff, thus, the present suit is not maintainable'. It is trite law that where a tenant repudiates the title of the landlord and does not recognize him as landlord or as an owner of the premises, the protection from eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act is not available to him. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in S. Makhan Singh v. Amarjeet Bali, (2008) 106 DRJ 705, that:
5. [S]ection 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable properties come to an end by forfeiture in case of lessee renouncing his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or claiming title in himself. Thus, once a lease CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 17/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:22 +0530 stands forfeited by operation of law, the person in occupation of the premises cannot take benefit of the legal tenancy. This provision under Section 111 (g) is based on public policy and the principle of estoppel. A person who takes premises on rent from landlord is estopped from challenging his title or right to let out the premises. If he does so he does at his own peril and law does not recognize such a person as legal tenant in the premises. A lease may come to an end by termination of lease by or by efflux of time. Where the rent is below Rs. 3,500/-, a landlord cannot recover possession from tenant whose term of lease comes to an end or whose tenancy is terminated by a notice because such a tenant is a protected tenant. The landlord can recover possession only if the case falls within the ambit of Section 14 of DRC Act. Where a tenant repudiates the title of the landlord and does not recognize him as landlord or as a owner of the premises, the protection from eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act is not available to him. Where the tenant does not recognize anyone as landlord or owner and claims ownership in himself, he cannot seek protection of Delhi Rent Control Act against the true landlord or owner. The Trial Court therefore rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to protection under Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act.
6. Where the tenant continues in occupation after he repudiates the title of the landlord, lease comes to an end by operation of law because of the repudiation of title and the landlord/owner can file a suit for possession in Civil Court. (emphasis supplied)
29. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jatinder Pal Singh v. Harinder Singh Jaggi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11727, has held that:
6. Therefore, it is seen that the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 has indeed denied the title of the appellant/plaintiff of the suit property while continuing to claim tenancy of the said property, and therefore, applying the ratio of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Naeem Ahmed (supra), it is held that the tenancy of the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 came to an end on the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 denying the ownership title of the appellant/plaintiff of the suit property. Once the tenancy comes to an end, a suit can be filed in a civil court for possession. Further, once there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, then, Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is not a bar to filing of a civil suit for possession.CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 18/23
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:27 +0530
30. This plea can be looked into from another dimension. It has already been held by the Court that in the last week of July 2020, D-2 told the plaintiff that he was not residing at the suit property. This leads to infer that he had surrendered the lease granted to him in the last week of July 2020. Accordingly, D-1/sister of D-2 becomes unauthorized occupant of the suit property thereafter.
31. The Court is reminded of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage, (1976) 3 SCC 660, wherein the Court has held that:
19. A surrender under clauses (e) and (f) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, is an yielding up of the term of the lessee's interest to him who has the immediate reversion or the lessor's interest. It takes effect like a contract by mutual consent on the lessor's acceptance of the act of the lessee. The lessee cannot, therefore, surrender unless the term is vested in him; and the surrender must be to a person in whom the immediate reversion expectant on the term is vested. Implied surrender by operation of law occurs by the creation of a new relationship, or by relinquishment of possession. If the lessee accepts a new lease that in itself is a surrender. Surrender can also be implied from the consent of the parties or from such facts as the relinquishment of possession by the lessee and taking over possession by the lessor.
Relinquishment of possession operates as an implied surrender. There must be a taking of possession, not necessarily a physical taking, but something amounting to a virtual taking of possession. Whether this has occurred is a question of fact.
32. In view of observations made in the preceding paragraphs, neither D-2 nor D-1 is entitled to protection from eviction under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. With utmost respect, the Court is of the view that the precedents relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the defendants do not provide any support to the defendants. The CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 19/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:33 +0530 plaintiff has placed on record the documents of transfer of rights over the suit property executed in her favour i.e. GPA, Deed of Agreement, Receipt, Will and Affidavit dated 20.03.1992, Ex.PW-1/1. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to possessory rights on the basis of these documents. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, AIR 2023 SC 2754. The case of Ghanshyam has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Anuj Sharma v. Amit Sharma, 2023 (304) DLT 270. Thereby, the plaintiff has proved her entitlement to recover possession of the suit property from the defendants. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
33. Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of damages @ Rs. 5000/- per month since February, 2020 till vacation of the suit property, as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed the damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month from February 2020 till vacation of the suit property. But, barring the submission made in this regard in her plaint, the plaintiff has not led any affirmative evidence to show that the suit property would have fetched rent of Rs.5,000/- per month from February 2020 till date. However, it stands proved that D-2 was the tenant of plaintiff since January 2020 and he did not pay rent of the suit premises since February 2020. Accordingly, he is liable to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.3,500/- per month from February 2020 to July 2020. It has been further held that D-1 is in unauthorized occupation since August 2020. It is worth noting that on one hand, defendants have CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 20/23 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:39 +0530 claimed that D-2 is not a necessary party in the present suit, but the affidavit of D-2 annexed with written statement bears his address as of the suit property only i.e. H. No. 480, Ground Floor, Baba Faridpuri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. This leads to infer that both the defendants are in connivance with each other and accordingly, both shall be held liable for payment of occupation charges of the suit property. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the rent of tenanted premises is usually increased @ 10% after every three years. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay damages/occupation charges @ Rs.3,500/- to the plaintiff from August 2020 to December 2022. They are liable to pay such charges @ Rs.3,850/- from January 2023 till handing over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The issue no. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.
34. Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issue was again upon the plaintiff. Though there is no specific averment of the plaintiff in her plaint showing that the defendants had ever tried to create any third party interest over the suit property. However, from the conduct of D-2 that he had unauthorizedly allowed D-1 to be in possession of the suit property and further, D-1 has claimed that she would not vacate the suit property without refund of security amount of Rs.2,20,000/-, the apprehension of plaintiff that defendants are likely to create third party interest over the suit property is genuine. Thus, she is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 21/23Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:44 +0530
35. Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as she is not the owner of the suit property and the suit property is situated on Government Land? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. First of all, it is pertinent to note that in a dispute between landlord and tenant, the tenant is not allowed to challenge the ownership/title of the landlord. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamaljit Singh v. Sarabjit Singh, (2014) 16 SCC 472. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has produced on record the documents of transfer of rights over the suit property executed in her favour i.e. GPA, Deed of Agreement, Receipt, Will and Affidavit dated 20.03.1992, Ex.PW-1/1. During her cross-examination, she has deposed that she had purchased the suit property from one Lala Ram. She did not have the chain of documents prior to Lala Ram. She admitted the suggestion put to her that the area where suit property falls/situated is encroached one and people built-up their houses. She denied the suggestion that neither she nor Lala was the owner of the property in question. Even the neighbor of plaintiff/PW-3 has deposed during his cross-examination that as per his knowledge, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Lala Ram. On other hand, the defendants have not produced any record or examined any witness to show that the suit property was situated on the government land. The onus to prove this aspect was upon the defendants, but they have failed to bring any evidence on record to substantiate their claim. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants.
CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 22/23Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:52:49 +0530 Relief
36. In view of above findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendants. Accordingly, the defendants are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. part portion of property bearing no. 480, ground floor (back portion), Baba Farid Puri, Delhi, as shown in the site plan Ex. PW-1/13, to the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 is liable to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.3,500/- per month from February 2020 to July 2020. The defendants are liable to pay damages/occupation charges @ Rs.3,500/- to the plaintiff from August 2020 to December 2022. They are further liable to pay such charges @ Rs.3,850/- from January 2023 till handing over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendants are restrained from creating third party interest over the suit property. The plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of costs of the suit from the defendants. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. However, it is made clear that the decree sheet with respect to damages/occupation charges be prepared after the plaintiff pays the court fess with respect to the damages/occupation charges.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA NAVEEN Announced in the open Court GUPTA Date: 2025.11.21 on the 21st day of November, 2025 16:52:56 +0530 (Naveen Gupta) District Judge-09, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. CS DJ 690/2020 Page no. 23/23