Delhi District Court
Satish Kumar Sharma vs Pankaj Nangia on 13 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS GARG, DJ-05 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RCA DJ No. 72/25
CNR No. DLET01-005495-2025
Satish Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Parmanand Sharma
R/o H.No. 15, Krishna Kunj Extn.
Part-1, Gali No.3, Laxmi Nagar
Delhi-92
........Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Nangia
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dev Nangia
R/o M-159, 1st Floor Laxmi Nagar
Delhi-92 ........Respondent
Date of Institution : 18.10.2025
Date of Reserving Order : 12.11.2025
Date of Decision : 13.11.2025
FIRST APPEAL UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 & 2 OF
CPC READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DT.01-09-2025 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD SCJ (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI IN A SUIT FOR
POSSESSION AND DAMAGES/MENSE PROFITS IN
CS NO. 15/2022 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 1 of 27
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.11.13
16:44:44 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Background And Scope Of Present Appeal (In Brief):-
By this order, the Court proceeds to dispose of the present appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 15/2022, titled Pankaj Nangia vs. Satish Kumar Sharma, by Ms. T. Priyadarshini, Learned Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
By the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2025, the Learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the appellant/defendant to deliver vacant, peaceful, and physical possession of the suit property, i.e., the godown situated at M-159, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 (as shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/1), to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of the judgment. In default, it was directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to have the decree executed in accordance with law.
The Learned Trial Court further passed a decree for damages/mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay damages/mesne profits at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the date of handing over of possession, along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 2 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:45:13 +0530 from the end of each month for which such damages/mesne profits are due. The defendant was also directed to pay the costs of the suit.
2. Facts and Circumstances Leading to the Present Appeal (As Stated in the Memorandum of Appeal):
The plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits in respect of a property described as a godown situated on the ground floor of property No. M-159, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. As per the plaintiff's version, the suit property was let out to the defendant by the plaintiff's father on a monthly rent of ₹3,500/- with effect from 08.08.2005, with the understanding that the rent would be increased to ₹4,000/- after one year. It is stated that the defendant has been paying rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month, and rent was paid in cash against receipts up to May 2021. For the tenancy months from June 2021 to November 2021, the defendant deposited a total of ₹24,000/- (at ₹4,000/- per month) in the bank account of the plaintiff's wife through Paytm. A rent agreement dated 08.08.2005 was also executed between the deceased father of the plaintiff and the defendant.
It is further stated that the plaintiff's father, late Shri Ram Dev Nangia, died intestate on 26.03.2013. The property RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 3 of 27 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.11.13
16:45:21
+0530
bearing No. M-159, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, of which the suit premises form part, was his self-acquired property. Upon his demise, the property devolved by natural succession upon his surviving legal heirs--his widow and three sons, including the plaintiff. Subsequently, by a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 02.08.2016, the widow and the other two sons, namely Shri Pawan Nangia and Shri Praveen Nangia, relinquished their respective 1/4th undivided shares in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of property No. M-159, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, including the suit premises, and the defendant continued to pay rent to him against receipts.
The tenancy of the defendant in the suit premises is described as a month-to-month tenancy at a monthly rent of ₹4,000/-, exclusive of statutory charges. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant became irregular in payment of rent and failed to pay rent after May 2021 for several months. When called upon to vacate the premises, the defendant tendered rent for six months (June 2021 to November 2021) through Paytm in the account of the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff nonetheless insisted on vacating the premises, but the defendant failed to comply.
In his written statement, the defendant raised preliminary objections, contending that the suit is barred under the Delhi RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 4 of 27 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.11.13
16:45:30
+0530
Rent Control Act, 1958, and is therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The defendant asserted that the actual monthly rent is ₹500/-, not ₹4,000/-, and therefore the tenancy is protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The defendant further alleged that the rent receipts and the rent agreement dated 08.08.2005 are false and fabricated. Without prejudice, it was submitted that even if such a rent agreement existed, it is for a tenancy exceeding 11 months, is unregistered and unstamped, and is therefore liable to be impounded under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.
The defendant argued that as per Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, if a document is insufficiently stamped or unregistered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, the court is bound to impound it, assess the deficient stamp duty, and collect the same along with any applicable penalty. The document may be admitted in evidence only for collateral purposes upon payment of the required stamp duty, in view of the bar contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act. The defendant also relied upon Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, which imposes an obligation upon the party liable to pay stamp duty to disclose all facts affecting chargeability.
It was further submitted that the recital of the rent agreement expressly mentions that the lease is for one year with a provision for increase of rent thereafter, indicating that it RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 5 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:45:38 +0530 was intended from the outset to create a lease exceeding one year's duration. Consequently, under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the document was compulsorily registrable. The unregistered rent deed, therefore, ought to have been impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, and being improperly stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the said Act.
The defendant maintained that he had been regularly paying monthly rent at the rate of ₹500/- to the plaintiff, who, however, failed to issue rent receipts. The rent receipts and rent agreement produced by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated and do not bear the signatures of the defendant.
The defendant filed an application under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act on 04.03.2023, which was taken on record and fixed for reply and arguments. Though the plaintiff filed a reply, the said application was never decided by the Learned Trial Court, depriving the defendant of an important and valid defence. The defendant also filed an application under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act regarding disconnection of electricity and water supply by the plaintiff, which was erroneously treated by the Learned Trial Court as an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the provisions of the DRC Act and CPC are distinct in nature and scope.
RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 6 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:45:45 +0530 The Learned Trial Court framed issues vide order dated 04.10.2023, including Issue No. 6: "Whether the suit is not maintainable for the bar created under the DRC Act? OPD."
The defendant contends that this issue, being purely legal and going to the root of jurisdiction, ought to have been treated and decided as a preliminary issue.
The defendant further submits that he had complied with the directions of the Learned Trial Court dated 04.03.2023 by paying arrears of rent at the rate of ₹500/- per month, as the agreed rent. Despite this compliance, the Trial Court struck off the defendant's defence on the ground that rent at ₹4,000/- per month had not been paid. The Trial Court treated the said order as a show cause notice under Order XV-A CPC and struck off the defence vide order dated 22.08.2024 without affording the defendant an opportunity to show cause, which is mandatory under law. The defendant had also filed an application expressing readiness to pay the alleged balance amount, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2025.
It was further contended that the plaintiff failed to prove during trial when and how the rent was enhanced from ₹3,500/- to ₹4,000/- per month. In fact, the Learned Trial Court itself held, while deciding Issue No. 4, that the rent agreement is unenforceable being unregistered. Neither the plaintiff nor the Trial Court has clarified the basis or the RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 7 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: 2025.11.13 GARG 16:45:53 +0530 procedure through which the rent was allegedly enhanced without issuance of any notice, in violation of Sections 6A and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The defendant also proved during trial that rent at ₹500/- per month had been regularly paid and accepted by the plaintiff pursuant to the directions of the Learned Trial Court, without protest or dispute. This clearly demonstrates that the actual rent of the tenanted premises was ₹500/- per month, bringing the tenancy squarely within the ambit of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this material fact and erroneously treated the matter as a civil suit outside the purview of the DRC Act.
3. Grounds of Appeal.
A Because the impugned order dated 01-09-2025 is ex-facie wrong, incorrect and untenable in law and is based on absolute non-application of judicial mind and is arbitrary.
B Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has stated in his plaint that as per the rent agreement dt. 08-08-2005 the rent was Rs. 3,500/-p.m. which is covered under DRC Act and the Ld Trial Court being as a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for possession with monthly rent of Rs. 3500/-pm being barred RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 8 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:01 +0530 U/s 50 of the DRC Act.
C Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the defendant had paid the agreed rent @ Rs. 500/-p.m. which is admitted fact and plaintiff has accepted the said rent of Rs. 500/-pm without any protest and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the plaintiff Thus Civil Court jurisdiction is barred U/s 50 of DRC Act.
D Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the settled law that the rent cannot be enhanced by the landlord unilaterally without the complying the provision of section 6A & section 8 of DRC Act and without the consent and permission of the Rent Controller as prescribed under section 9 & 10 of DRC Act.
E Because the Ld. Trial Court has not considered the facts that the defendant has filed an application U/s 33 of the Stamp Act and another application filed U/s 45 of DRC Act have not been decided during the Trial by the Ld Trial Court. The Impugned Order is not sustainable on this point and is liable to be set aside.
F Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the landlord /respondent has to prove its case by its own RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 9 of 27 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:09 +0530 document and evidence and not by the weakness of the tenant/appellant. The impugned judgment is untenable and is liable to be set aside.
G That the Ld trial Court has failed to appreciate that the tenant/appellant was never on default in depositing of the agreed rent therefore the tenant/appellant was entitled defend the suit and his defence should not have been struck off merely for not paying arrear of rent of Rs. 4000/-pm to the plaintiff and it is not violation of Order XV-A of CPA as held by the Ld Trial Court.
H Because it is necessary in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court of LD SCJ/RC (East) Karkardooma Court Delhi because if the impugned judgment is allowed to stand, grave travesty and miscarriage of justice would be caused to the Appellant/Tenant.
4. Prayer:-
A. Appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 passed by Hon'ble Court of Ld SCJ/RC (East) Karkardooma Court Delhi, in Suit CS No.15/2022 and allow the present Appeal of the Appellant as per the provisions of law.
RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 10 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:15 +0530 Or
In alternate, remand the matter back to the Ld Trial Court after recalling the order of defence struck off and to defendant be given an opportunity to lead his defence and to decide the suit after appreciating the facts, documents and the evidence of the parties as per the provisions of law.
B. To stay the operation of Impugned Judgment and decree dt. 01-09-2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court till the disposal of the present Appeal.
C. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. Reply By The Respondent:-
No reply to the present appeal has been filed by the respondent.
6. Argument of the Appellant:-
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no notice under Order XV-A CPC was ever issued to the appellant/defendant by the Learned Trial Court. He submitted that issuance of such a notice is an indispensable requirement under Order XV-A CPC before striking off the defence of a party. In support of this contention, he relied RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 11 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:22 +0530 upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sh. Narsingh Shah vs. BDR Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2022/DHC/005179, drawing particular attention to paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 of the said decision.
He further submitted that the Learned Trial Court failed to issue any valid notice under Order XV-A CPC and that the defence of the appellant/defendant has been wrongly struck off. The counsel contended that the manner in which the Learned Trial Court purportedly informed the defendant about the applicability of Order XV-A CPC, vide order dated 04.03.2024, does not amount to a valid or legal notice within the meaning and scope of the said provision. It was further argued that, as per law, the Learned Trial Court was required to call for an explanation from the defendant pursuant to any such notice issued under Order XV-A CPC; however, no such opportunity was granted in the present case.
On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 be set aside, and the matter be remanded to the Learned Trial Court to afford the appellant/defendant an opportunity to lead evidence. He also prayed that the order striking off the defence of the appellant/defendant be quashed.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of the Delhi Rent RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 12 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:29 +0530 Control Act, and that any enhancement in rent could only have been effected by an order of the competent authority under the said Act.
In reply to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the order striking off the defence had attained finality owing to the filing of an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, the appellant's counsel clarified that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had directed the appellant to move an application before the Learned Trial Court for setting aside the order of striking off the defence. In compliance with the said direction, such an application was duly filed before the Learned Trial Court; however, the same was dismissed.
7. Argument of the Respondent:-
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order striking off the defence has attained finality, as the appellant/defendant had earlier filed a civil appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. He further submitted that despite such liberty, no further action was taken by the appellant/defendant against the said order of the Learned Trial Court striking off the defence. Hence, the said RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 13 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:38 +0530 order has attained finality and cannot be challenged at this stage.
He further contended that, in view of the striking off of the defence, the evidence led by the plaintiff remained unrebutted. It has been duly established that the monthly rent of the suit property was ₹4,000/-, and the rent receipts bearing the signatures of the appellant/defendant have been duly proved on record. During the cross-examination of the plaintiff (PW-1), the defence of pagdi was raised, but such a plea is not maintainable in law, and moreover, no issue was framed on that aspect.
On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the present appeal be dismissed with costs.
8. Consideration of Arguments and Record:-
I have heard the learned counsel for both parties, carefully perused the record, and considered the relevant legal precedents and judicial pronouncements applicable to the present case.
9. Point To Be Determined In Present Appeal:-
From the entire appeal of the defendant and the arguments of the both parties, the most germane point that comes to the consideration of the court are, RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 14 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:45 +0530
a) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 is contrary to the facts and evidence on record?
b) Whether impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 is not tenable in law and warrants any interference by this court?
10. Finding Of This Court And Analysis Of The Trial Court Judgment:-
For the sake of clarity, coherence, and systematic appreciation of the matter, the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 are analyzed and discussed under distinct and structured headings hereinafter. Wrongful Striking Off of Defence under Order XV-A CPC:
One of the principal grounds raised in the present appeal is that the defence of the appellant/defendant was erroneously and unjustly struck off by the Learned Trial Court under the provisions of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contents of Ground 'G' of the appeal, which are relevant for consideration in this context, are reproduced as under:
" G That the Ld trial Court has failed to appreciate that the tenant/appellant was never on default in depositing of the agreed rent therefore the tenant/appellant was entitled defend the suit and his defence should not have been struck off merely for RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 15 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:46:52 +0530 not paying arrear of rent of Rs. 4000/-pm to the plaintiff and it is not violation of Order XV-A of CPA as held by the Ld Trial Court."
It is contended in the Memorandum of Appeal that the defence ought not to have been struck off merely for non- payment of arrears of rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month. However, there appears to be no infirmity in the order of the Learned Trial Court striking off the defence of the appellant/defendant for failure to comply with its directions regarding payment of the said amount. Once an order of the court has been passed, it is incumbent upon the defendant to comply with it in its entirety, irrespective of whether the arrears involved are small or substantial. The obligation to adhere to judicial directions cannot be diluted on the ground of the quantum involved. Moreover, the arrears in question
--₹4,000 per month for eight months, even as per the defendant's own showing--cannot by any standard be considered meagre. Accordingly, this ground of challenge lacks merit.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice under Order XV-A CPC was served upon the defendant. It was also argued that the manner in which the Learned Trial Court brought the provisions of Order XV-A CPC to the notice of the defendant vide order dated 04.03.2024 does not constitute a valid legal notice as RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 16 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:01 +0530 contemplated under the said provision. This contention is found to be without substance. The order of the Learned Trial Court dated 04.03.2024 explicitly records the issuance of notice and the supply of a copy of the said order sheet to the defendant. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.03.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Perusal of the file shows that plaintiff is inter alia claiming arrears of rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month from December, 2021 from the defendant. Defendant, who appears in the Court, claims that the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month and is only due from December, 2021. Thus, the only dispute between the parties is with respect to the rate of rent.
Considering the fact that defendant does not dispute that he is the tenant of the plaintiff and that as per him, he has to pay rent @ Rs.500/- per month w.e.f December, 2021, he is directed to clear the admitted arrears within 7 days from today failing which his defence may be liable to be struck off in light of Order 15A CPC. Copy of this order is given dasti to the defendant which shall serve as show cause to him in case he fails to clear the said arrears as aforesaid. The amount ordered to be paid above is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of the parties before this Court."
Moreover, the signatures of the defendant, Sh. Satish Sharma, appear on both sides of the order sheet dated 04.03.2024, which clearly indicates that such signatures were obtained as acknowledgment of receipt of a copy of the said order sheet. This inference is further supported by the RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 17 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:08 +0530 fact that no other order sheet in the record bears the defendant's signatures.
The order sheet dated 04.03.2024 explicitly mentions the issuance of a show cause notice and records that a copy of the order sheet/notice was duly supplied to the defendant. From the above discussion, it is evident that a valid notice under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was indeed issued to the defendant in due compliance with the procedure prescribed by law.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sh. Narsingh Shah vs. BDR Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However, no violation or deviation by the Learned Trial Court from the principles laid down in the said judgment has been found. As already discussed, the notice under Order XV-A CPC was duly and validly issued.
It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Learned Trial Court ought to have sought an explanation from the defendant in response to the show cause notice issued under Order XV-A CPC, and that no such explanation was recorded. This argument, however, lacks merit. Despite service of the notice through supply of the order sheet dated 04.03.2024, the defendant neither filed any written reply nor offered any oral explanation before the court. On the contrary, the defendant voluntarily agreed to RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 18 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:16 +0530 pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff and even tendered part payment directly to the plaintiff towards those arrears, without disputing the show cause notice or raising any objection to its contents.
Subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice on 04.03.2024, on the very next date of hearing, i.e., 19.04.2024, the plea of the plaintiff regarding non-payment of ₹4,000/- as the remaining arrears of rent was recorded. The order dated 19.04.2024 is reproduced below:
"Civ Suit 15/22PANKAJ NANGIA Vs. SATISH KUMAR SHARMA CNR No. DLET03-000017-2022 19.04.2024 Present: Plaintiff alongwith Counsel Ms. Saira Praveen Defendant in person.
Sh. Vidya Bhushan, L.d. LAC for the defendant (through VC).
Fresh case allocation form filed by LAC. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that till date the entire arrears of rent have not been paid by the defendant and Rs.4,000/- are still payable by him. This submission is disputed by the defendant.
The cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the last date is not paid by the defendant to plaintiff. Rather the defendant submitted that he had not received copy of evidence of plaintiff, so he could not have cross-
RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 19 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:24 +0530 examined the plaintiff on the last date.
Record reveals that on 12.12.2023 and on 04.03.2024, nо submission was made by the defendant qua non-supply of affidavit of evidence. Without admitting the submissions of the defendant, the plaintiff had supplied the copy of affidavit of evidence to defendant.
List the matter for recording of evidence on 14.05.2024.
The defendant is directed to comply with the previous order, failing which, this court may be constrained to strike off the defense of the defendant.
(Anurag Thakur) SCJ-cum-RC East/KKD/19.04.2024"
On the next date of hearing, i.e., 14.05.2024, the Trial Court clearly recorded the filing of printouts of the payments made by the defendant towards arrears of rent. The order dated 14.05.2024 is reproduced as follows:"Civ Suit 15/22
PANKAJ NANGIA Vs. SATISH KUMAR SHARMA CNR No. DLET03-000017-2022 14.05.2024 Present: Plaintiff alongwith Counsels Sh. Raj Kumar and Ms. Saira Parveen.
Defendant alongwith LAC Sh. Vidya Bhushan.
RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 20 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:31 +0530 An application for waiver of cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the defendant is made. Copy supplied. Printouts of payments made qua rent in compliance of order dated 04.03.2024 filed by defendant.
List for consideration on the aspect of compliance of order dated 04.03.2024 on 22.05.2024.
(Anurag Thakur) SCJ-cum-RC East/KKD/14.05.2024"
The matter was thereafter listed on 22.05.2024, and the order passed on that date is reproduced below:"Civil Suit 15/22
PANKAJ NANGIA VS. SATISH KUMAR
SHARMA
CNR No. DLET03-000017-2022
22.05.2024
Present: Plaintiff along with Ld. Counsel Sh.
Raj Kumar and Ms. Saira Parveen.
Defendant in person.
Sh. Vidya Bhushan, Ld. LAC for defendant (through VC).
Arguments on the aspect of compliance of order dated 04.03.2024 are heard.
Submissions on the application seeking waiver of cost of Rs.5,000/- are also heard. List for orders on 18.07.2024 at 04:00 p.m. (Anurag Thakur) RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 21 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:41 +0530 SCJ-cum-RC East/KKD/22.05.2024"
Subsequently, on 22.08.2024, the defence of the defendant was struck off on account of non-payment of the remaining arrears of rent amounting to ₹4,000/-. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:
" Now only three receipts of Rs.2,500/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.7,000/- dated 11.03.2024, 17.04.2024 and 08.03.2024 are left. Since only seven days time was given to defendant to clear arrears of rent, so the receipt of Rs.500/- showing payment made to plaintiff by defendant cannot be considered as payment towards arrears of rent. The remaining two receipts show that arrears of rent amounting to Rs.9,500/- have been paid by defendant to plaintiff in part compliance of order dated 04.03.2024 and the defendant has not fully complied with that order. He is still liable to pay Rs.4,000/- to the plaintiff. Since the order dated 04.03.2024 has not been properly complied with, accordingly, the defence of the defendant is struck in terms of Order XV-A CPC as the show cause notice had already been served to defendant on 04.03.2024 itself."
From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the defendant neither chose to challenge the show cause notice nor submitted any reply to the notice dated 04.03.2024, which was duly recorded in the form of an order sheet. On the contrary, the defendant voluntarily made a substantial RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 22 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:50 +0530 payment towards the arrears of rent before the next date of hearing, i.e., 19.04.2024.
In light of the above, it cannot be contended that the Court failed to consider any explanation from the defendant. The fact remains that the defendant himself did not furnish any explanation or response to the notice and, instead, opted to comply partially by making payments.
Accordingly, it stands established that the provisions of Order XV-A CPC were duly complied with by the Learned Trial Court, and there is no violation or procedural lapse in this regard.
Applicability of the Provisions of the DRC Act and Non- consideration of the Application under Section 45 of the DRC Act:
It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the agreed rate of rent was ₹500/- per month and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, there is no merit in these contentions. Through cogent evidence, it has been conclusively established that the monthly rent of the suit premises was ₹4,000/-. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and duly proved this fact with the aid of supporting documents, including the rent receipts. The defendant was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 23 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:47:59 +0530 plaintiff/PW-1, yet the plaintiff's examination-in-chief remained unrebutted.
Owing to the striking off of the defence, the defendant could not lead any evidence in support of his case. On the basis of the material on record, it stands clearly established that the monthly rent was ₹4,000/-. The argument that the plaintiff had admitted the rent to be ₹500/- per month has no force, as the acceptance of ₹500/- by the plaintiff pursuant to the orders of the court under Order XV-A CPC cannot be construed as an admission of such rent.
The Rule 3 of Order XV-A CPC is relevant in this context and reads as follows:
"(3) The amount deposited under this rule shall be paid to the plaintiff owner/lessor or his Advocate and the receipt of such amount shall not have the effect of prejudicing the claim of the plaintiff and it would not also be treated as a waiver of notice of termination."
In view of the above provision, it is clear that acceptance of rent under Order XV-A CPC does not amount to admission or waiver on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is devoid of substance.
There is no error in the order of the Learned Trial Court on this aspect also. The provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 24 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:48:09 +0530 present case. The Learned Trial Court, in its final judgment, has comprehensively and appropriately dealt with the issue regarding the applicability of the DRC Act. Consequently, the non-decision of the defendant's application under Section 45 of the DRC Act does not, in any manner, vitiate the proceedings or render the judgment of the Trial Court defective.
Non-consideration of the Application under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act:
The Learned Trial Court accepted the contention of the defendant/appellant that the rent agreement could not be relied upon due to its non-registration and, accordingly, proceeded in consonance with the defendant's own version by disregarding the said document. The Trial Court did not place any reliance whatsoever on the rent agreement while adjudicating the matter. Instead, it rendered its findings independently of that document and based its conclusions entirely on other credible evidence available on record, including the testimony of the plaintiff (PW-1) and the duly proved rent receipts.
In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant has raised the issue that the Learned Trial Court did not decide the application filed under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. However, in view of the foregoing discussion, since the RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 25 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.13 16:48:18 +0530 impugned judgment was based solely on independent oral and documentary evidence and not on the disputed rent agreement, the question of adjudicating the said application loses all significance.
Accordingly, the non-decision of the application under Section 33 of the Stamp Act has no bearing on the merits of the case and does not vitiate the judgment of the Learned Trial Court in any manner.
11. Conclusion:-
I have carefully examined the impugned judgment and decree and find no reason to differ from the reasoning, observations, or conclusions arrived at by the Learned Trial Court. Upon an independent and comprehensive appraisal of the evidence and material on record, this Court finds itself in complete agreement with the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court. There is neither any perversity nor any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree, or in the order striking off the defence of the defendant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
12. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary record.
RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 26 of 27 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.13 16:48:27 +0530
13. The decree-sheet in the appeal shall be prepared in accordance with the terms of this judgment.
14. The appeal file shall be consigned to the Record Room. The TCR shall be returned to the Trial Court forthwith.
Pronounced in the open court Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
on 13th November, 2025 2025.11.13
GARG 16:48:33
+0530
(Vikas Garg)
District Judge-05/EAST),
KKD, Delhi/13.11.2025
RCA DJ No. 72/25 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Pankaj Nangia Page no. 27 of 27