Delhi District Court
Mehtab Alam vs Kalim on 8 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030009432024
CS SCJ No.599/2024
In the matter of:
Mehtab Alam
Son of Mr. Anwaar Ahmed
R/o 7/289. Gali No 7 Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar East Delhi-110092.
Also at:-
R/o Mohalla Katra Gulam Ali Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.
..........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Kalim
House No. 12 (Fourth Floor)
Gali No.1, New Basti Kureni Narela,
New Delhi-110040.
......Defendant
Date of Institution 31.05.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 08.09.2025
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF
RENT, RECOVERY OF MESNE PROFITS/DAMAGES AND
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION. Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.09.08
14:44:08 +0530
CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 1/10
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking reliefs in the nature of Possession, Recovery Of Arrears Of Rent, Recovery Of Mesne Profits/Damages against the defendant. The defendant is alleged to be lessee of the plaintiff.
Facts of the case as per plaint
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property situated at House No.12 (Fourth Floor), Gali No.1, New Basti, Kureni, Narela, Delhi-110040 alongwith all fixtures and fittings, and has been shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter called the suit property).
The suit property is comprising 2 Bedrooms, one Drawing Room, One Lobby, One Kitchen, One Toilet Cum Bathroom, One Balcony with one Bike Parking at Ground Floor, having been purchased from its previous owner, namely, Mohd. Usama, son of Raisuddin, r/o C-101, North Ghonda, Yamuna Vihar, North-East, Delhi-110053 by virtue of various title documents/transfer documents such as General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and other documents of dt. 21 June, 2023. It is averred that initially, one Syed Ghazi Abbas was the owner of the said property, who sold the said property to Mohd. Usama by virtue of various sale documents.
3. It is averred that the defendant was already in possession of the suit property as lessee of previous owner, and has requested the plaintiff to continue the lease in respect of the suit property when Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 2/10 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.08 14:44:15 +0530 the plaintiff had visited the suit property on 22 June 2023 and accordingly, the defendant entered into an oral Lease with the plaintiff on same terms and condition in respect of the suit property and by virtue of the same, the defendant had to pay a rent of Rs.5000/- per month on 15th day of every month to the Plaintiff herein as he was paying to his previous owner.
4. It is averred that to the great dismay of the plaintiff, since July 2023, the defendant is not making any payment towards rent and other charges to the plaintiff despite several request of the plaintiff. It was mandatory on the part of the defendant that the payment is to be made on or before 15th day of each English Calendar month and as per law, the defendant is also liable to pay the interest on the delay payment of lease charges at the rate of 18% per annum.
It is alleged that the defendant has also wilfully violated the other terms and conditions of the said oral Lease Deed and have not paid the rent/lease charges regularly. It is averred that the plaintiff has issued a separate legal notice dt. 01.09.2023 to the defendant under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act in this regard. Hence, this suit.
5. Reliefs Claimed:
By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:
a) Decree of Possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby, directing the defendant to vacate and Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 3/10 SHARMA Date:
2025.09.08 14:44:21 +0530 handover the actual, vacant and peaceful/physical possession of the suit property i.e. House No.12 (Fourth Floor), Gali No. 1, New Basti, Kureni, Narela, Delhi-110040 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached.
(b) Decree for a sum of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant being the damages/use and occupation charges w.e.f. October, 2023 till May, 2024 with same rate of damages till the vacation and handing over the possession of the suit property i.e. House No. 12 (Fourth Floor), Gali No.1, New Basti, Kureni, Narela, Delhi-110040 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached.
(c) Decree for a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant being the arrears of rent w.e.f. June, 2023 to September, 2023 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said due amount, in respect of the suit property i.e. House No.12 (Fourth Floor), Gali No.1, New Basti, Kureni, Narela, Delhi-110040 which has been more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan attached;
(d) Decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby, restraining the defendant, their agents, employees, associates, workers, officers/ officials and the persons working on their behalf from sub-letting, assigning and/or part with the possession of the suit property in whole or in part and/or from causing any damage or substantial damages to the suit property i.e. House No.12 (Fourth Floor), Gali No.1, New Basti, Kureni, Narela, Delhi-110040, comprising 2 Bedrooms, one Drawing Room, One Lobby, One Kitchen, One Toilet Cum Bathroom, One Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 4/10 SHARMA Date:
2025.09.08 14:44:27 +0530 Balcony with one Bike Parking at Ground Floor, which has been more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan attached.
(e) Costs of the suit.
6. Summons in the present suit were received back with the report of refusal by defendant and were deemed to be duly served upon the defendant on 20.07.2024 but the defendant failed to appear before the court and file a written statement. Consequently, vide order dated 29.10.2024, the defendant was proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for ex-parte PE.
Plaintiff's Evidence
7. In order to prove his case the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and duly tendered his duly sworn in affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied on the following documents :-
S. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex.PW1/1(OSR) Copy of adhar card (4606 2529 3891)
2. Ex.PW1/2 Original Site plan GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, Ex.PW1/3 to receipt, possession letter and deed of
3.
Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) will all dated 21.06.2023 in favour of plaintiff.
GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, Ex.PW1/9 to
4. receipt, possession letter and deed of Ex.PW1/14(OSR) will all dated 13.06.2022 in favour of Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.08 14:44:34 +0530 CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 5/10 S. Exhibit No. Document Description No. Mohd. Usama
5. Ex.PW1/15 Legal notice
6. Ex.PW1/16 Tracking report.
PE was closed on 02.07.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the exparte final arguments advanced by ld counsel for plaintiff and have perused the record.
Findings
9. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has asserted that he is the owner of the suit property and the defendant has been in the possession of the suit property being tenant of the erstwhile owner. It is stated that the defendant had entered into an oral tenancy with the plaintiff in June 2023 with respect to the suit property with rent @ Rs 5,000/ per month. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant defaulted in making the payment of rent since July 2023 itself.
10. As the plaintiff has asserted himself to be landlord of the defendant, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish the same as required by section 101 of Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint which pertains to existence of oral tenancy. In Kanta Goswami v Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.08 14:44:39 +0530 CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 6/10 Roshan Arora CM(M) 2318/2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:
"13. The creation of oral tenancy is not barred by any law.
14. Indubitably, the onus on any such plaintiff is relatively rigorous and heavy but he has to, in any case, discharge the same in order to show and demonstrate that any such tenancy was created."
11. Thus, the onus on the plaintiff to prove existence of oral tenancy is rigorous and heavy. It is further relevant to note that the defendant is ex-parte in the present case and thus, additional duty is caste upon this court to weigh the evidence with greater scrutiny.
Apart from himself, the plaintiff has not examined any other witness to establish that oral tenancy was created with the defendant with respect to the suit property and for a rent of Rs 5,000/ per month. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was already in the property as tenant of erstwhile owner. However, the plaintiff did not take any pain to examine the erstwhile owner. No document i.e. copy of any rent agreement between the previous owner and the defendant has been placed on record. There is nothing on record to even show any payment being made by the defendant to the previous owner.
The argument that the defendant is ex-parte and no cross- examination is there against the averments made by the plaintiff, is not sound. The plaintiff is duty bound to establish its case Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.08 14:44:46 +0530 CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 7/10 positively without depending upon the shortcomings of the case of the defendant.
12. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that an oral tenancy existed between him and the defendant.
13. Additionally, the plaintiff has claimed himself to be owner of the suit property on the basis of notarized documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, Will etc viz. Ex PW-1/3-1/8. The said documents are alleged to have been executed by one Usama who has also allegedly acquired ownership of the suit property on the basis of same set of notarized documents Ex PW1/9-1/14 executed by one Syed Ghazi Abbas. There is no mention, in the pleadings or affidavit of evidence, as to how the said Syed Ghazi Abbas was owner of the suit property.
14. Nonetheless, it is settled that a sale of an immoveable property can not be done without a registered sale deed. A reference in this regard can be made to Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) vs State Of Haryana & Anr 2012(1) SCC 656 wherein it was held as under:
"16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully NITISH KUMAR SHARMA transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR SHARMA `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not Date:
2025.09.08 14:44:52 +0530 CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 8/10 convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales."
15. Thus, on the basis of the said documents i.e. GPA, agreement, affidavit, and receipt and which are only notarised documents, the plaintiff can not claim to say he had a lawful title over the suit property.
Further, it is also settled law that no one can transfer a better title than his own. In Ratendra Kumar Vs. Karya Nirikshak, Hathras Junction, 2018(6) All. LJ 386 the Hon'ble High Court held that no one can transfer a better title than he himself has and the Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 9/10 2025.09.08 14:44:59 +0530 buyer must be vigilant at the time of purchasing property and must inquire properly about the title of the seller. In the instant case, there is no averment or chain of document to show as to how the alleged erstwhile owner had any title to the suit property.
16. In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was landlord of defendant or that he has ownership over the suit property. The documents relied upon are insufficient to sustain the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the suit stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR
SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.08
on 08.09.2025 14:45:05
+0530
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/ 08.09.2025 CS SCJ No.599/2024 Mehtab Alam vs Kalim 10/10