Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 19 February, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 27 April 2026
+ RFA 556/2025, CM. APPL. 37087/2025 (Stay), CM. APPL.
37088/2025 (Exemption), CM. APPL. 37089/2025 (Exemption),
CM. APPL. 37090/2025 (Leave to Pay), CM. APPL. 76860/2025
(Placing on Record), CM. APPL. 77041/2025 (Exemption), CM.
APPL. 80296/2025 (Vacation), CM. APPL. 11470/2026 (Leave to
Appeal), CM APPL. 11471/2026 (Additional Facts)
SMT CHETNA SIKDAR
W/o Sh. Kingsuk Sikdar
R/o 52/10, Ground Floor,
Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, and Mr.
Ujjawal Jain, Advocates.
versus
VINOD KUMAR MEHTA
S/o Sh. Chander Shekhar Mehta
R/o 76-B, Pocket-F, Gangotri Enclave,
Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019 .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Jaya Goyal and Ms. Manpreet
Kaur, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ ) has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 1 of 20
been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Order and Judgment dated
28.05.2025 whereby the learned District Judge-02, New Delhi, has decreed
the Suit of the Plaintiff / Respondent, Mr. Vinod Kumar Mehta, for Recovery
of Possession of the Suit Property, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
2. The Plaintiffs / Respondent filed a Civil Suit bearing DJ CS No.
3287/2024 for Possession, Recovery of Arrears of Rent and mesne profits
along with pendente lite and future interest and Permanent Injunction.
3. The facts in brief as narrated in the Plaint, are that the erstwhile
owners i.e. Mr. Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana Barua, had let out the Ground
Floor of the Suit Property to the Defendant, Ms. Chetna Sikdar/Appellant
vide Lease Deed dated 19.05.2023, on a monthly rent of Rs.27,000/-, for a
period of 11 months, exclusive of electricity, water and common service
charges of the society. Clause 10 of the Lease Deed provided for payment of
Rs.2,000/- per day as damages, if the Defendant failed to vacate the Property
on the expiry of the Lease along with the monthly rent. The Defendant had
paid a refundable security of Rs.27,000/- to the Plaintiffs. The Lease
commenced from 19.05.2023 and expired on 18.04.2024 by efflux of time.
4. The plaintiff asserted that after a few months of commencement of the
Lease, the Defendants stopped paying rent since November, 2023, to the
erstwhile owners, despite repeated requests and demands. After the expiry of
the Lease on 18.04.2024, the Defendant was under the obligation to vacate
the Suit Property.
5. The respondents purchased the suit property from the erstwhile
owners i.e. Mr. Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana Barua through registered
documents, namely, registered Agreement to Sell, registered GPA,
registered Will, all dated 27.08.2024. They stepped into the shoes of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 2 of 20
erstwhile owner and became the exclusive owners and landlords of the Suit
Property.
6. The Legal Notice dated 29.08.2024, was served upon the Defendant
informing her that the demised premises has been sold and transferred and
Plaintiff No.1, Mr. Vinod Kumar, has been authorised to collect the arrears
of rent and mesne profits, from the Defendants.
7. The appellant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent and damages,
totalling to Rs.6,17,249/- until 15.09.2024, which she failed to pay. The
Defendant was claimed to be an unauthorised occupant w.e.f. 19.08.2024.
8. The Plaintiffs thus, filed a Suit for Recovery of Possession, recovery
of Arrears of Rent of Rs.3,10,500/- and Damages/Mesne Profits of
Rs.3,11,750/- @Rs.2,000/- per day w.e.f. 19.04.2024 till 15.09.2024 aside
from water charges and also for Permanent Injunction for restraining the
Defendant from creating third party interest in the Suit Property.
9. The Defendant in her Written Statement stated that Mr. Mr. Prabir
Barua and Smt. Kana Barua, were the Lessee of DDA. She claimed that in
terms of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 22.08.2025 , she became a sub-
Lessee.
10. Mr. Prabir Barua and Ms. Kana Barua under a Lease Deed, were in
the contract to equally share the semi, annual rental to the Lessor, to pay
cost of maintenance, share the water charges for common water supply and
share the cost of reconstruction, as and when commences.
11. It was claimed that the Plaintiffs, were not the owners of the Suit
Property. The Plaintiffs do not become owners on the basis of Agreement to
Sell, GPA etc . The Power of Attorney does not confer any ownership rights
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 3 of 20
and thus, it is wrong for the Plaintiffs to claim that they have stepped into
the shoes of the erstwhile owners.
12. It was further claimed that the Lease Deed dated 19.05.2023 was not a
genuine document and it was not signed by the Defendant and her husband
was never a witness to this document.
13. The Defendant further asserted that on 29.08.2024, the Plaintiff No. 1,
Mr. Vinod Kumar had approached her for the first time with a Letter,
claimed to be signed by Mr. Prabir Barua, asking the Defendant to vacate
the premises and also to pay Rs.5,71,624/-, to Plaintiff No. 1. The Letter
handed over to her, was neither verifiable nor was it countersigned by any of
the Plaintiffs. No calls have been made by Mr. Prabir Barua either
immediately preceding the Letter or during the process or thereafter,
informing the Defendant about handing over of possession to third parties.
14. The Defendant was informed by the Plaintiffs that the original first
party to the contract ( erstwhile owners ), had vacated the premises and the
same were now in the possession of the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who claimed
themselves to be the joint owners of the Property.
15. On 30.08.2024, around 9 p.m., the Defendant got a call from PCR,
Delhi Police as six labourers were sent to demolish the floor above, which
was earlier occupied by the original first party to the contract. A constable of
CR Park Police Station, rounded up the labourers and found them to be
unauthorised occupants, sent by the Plaintiff No. 2, namely, Mr. Gopal
Bhatt, without duly informing the Police Station.
16. The Defendant claimed that she was never contacted by the original
first party to the contract, while the Plaintiffs illegally shut the common
water pump, blocked the entry to the terrace where the common water tank
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 4 of 20
and posted 24-hour guards to bar her entry to the premises. The trees outside
the boundary wall were chopped illegally and CCTV cameras were installed,
to monitor the Defendant and her family’s movements.
17. After numerous complaints to the Police Station and attempts to
verify the claims of the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, the Court Summons were
served upon the Defendant on 23.09.2024. The Defendant further claimed
that there was no privity of contract between her and the Plaintiffs and the
Suit was liable to be dismissed.
18. Thereafter, an Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed
by the Plaintiffs claiming that in the light of the admission of relationship of
landlord and tenant, the Suit for Possession be decreed . Further relief was
claimed under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Order 15-A CPC that the
Plaintiffs be granted Recovery of Arrears of Rent/occupation charges
@Rs.27,000/- per month since the Defendant had not denied having paid
rent since November, 2023.
19. The Application was contested by the Defendant essentially on the
grounds of there being no privity of contract between the parties. The Lease
Deed was claimed to be fraudulent and that there was no admission in
regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant or about the liability to pay
the rent.
20. The learned District Judge referred to the Written Statement and
concluded that there was no denial of relationship of landlord and tenant
and the occupation of the Suit Property by the Defendant, was admitted to
be as that of a tenant . Insofar as denial of the locus standi of the Plaintiffs
was concerned, it was concluded that on the basis of Agreement to Sell,
GPA etc. dated 27.08.2024, the Plaintiffs have stepped into the shoes of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 5 of 20
erstwhile owners and therefore, they had become the landlords in respect of
the Suit Property and had the locus to seek the Possession and the arrears of
rent/damages and occupation charges. The Suit of the Plaintiffs, thus was
decreed for Possession and Arrears of Rent/Mesne Profits, vide Judgment
dated 28.05.2025.
21. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the present First Regular Appeal has
been filed .
22. The grounds of challenge , are that the decree has been granted to the
Respondents without a due process; it not only deprives the Appellant of her
right to lawful possession, but also risks the immediate demolition of the
Property, as expressly admitted by Respondents’ Counsel in the Court on
28.02.2025 in response to the Judge’s query regarding their objective behind
seeking possession. Such demolition would result in irreparable harm,
extinguishing the subject matter of the Suit and rendering any post-facto
remedy, ineffective.
23. The case of the Plaintiff was fast-tracked and decreed under Order 12
Rule 6 CPC , without adjudication of the Applicant’s Application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC . The Appellant has been denied a right to fair trial
including an opportunity to lead evidence on contesting issues.
24. The Appellant’s submissions having been held to be inadequate and
unwarranted in the impugned Order, has prejudiced her right under Section
32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 , to represent her case as a Party-in-Person.
This is particularly grave, in light of the Appellant’s decision to appear in
person after raising concerns of possible collusion between the former
counsel and the Respondents’ counsel. Her independent and diligent efforts
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 6 of 20
to assist the Court were dismissed without due consideration, resulting in
denial of effective access to justice.
25. The Appellant claimed that manner in which the case was conducted
and the Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC , was fast-tracked, has
resulted in denial of fundamental right under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the
Constitution of India including her right to property, right to be heard, and
right to a fair and impartial trial.
26. Further, the learned Trial Court erred in accepting an Agreement to
Sell, General Power of Attorney, etc. , that stood extinguished upon the death
of the executor around the time of filing of the Plaint, and the Will has not
been probated, despite the elapse of nine months from the death of the
alleged testator. It cannot be taken as sufficient proof of ownership and
superior title in favour of the Respondents.
27. The Property in question is leasehold land, allotted by the Delhi
Development Authority ( for short ‘DDA’ ) wherein no transfer or mutation,
has been sanctioned. It is well settled that GPA/ATS/Will are not valid
instruments of transfer, particularly in respect of leasehold properties. The
material objections of the Appellant in regard to apparent forgery and
procedural irregularities surrounding these documents, has not been
considered, resulting in a perverse finding on title unsupported by law or
admissible evidence.
28. Reliance has placed on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656.
29. The Appellant further asserted that the Respondents have themselves
admitted to be the property dealers, with no legal or familial connection to
the original lessees. They have sought to assert ownership over the bona fide
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 7 of 20
DDA leasehold plot, by relying on an Agreement to Sell, a General Power of
Attorney and an unprobated Will and chain of documents. The learned Trial
Court failed to give due consideration to the legal impermissibility of such
transactions and a larger public policy concerns they raise, particularly
where third-party speculative interests ae involved. Reliance is placed on
Delhi Development Authority vs. Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr ., decided
on 26.08.2003.
30. The Appellant claimed that despite her repeated requests to ascertain
the whereabouts of Mr. Prabir Barua and the medical condition of Ms. Kana
Barua, the original joint Lessees of the DDA Property, through whom the
Respondents had alleged to have derived their rights, no enquiry has been
conducted. There is a suspicious timing in execution of the alleged
Agreement to Sell, GPA and Will.
31. These concerns were stated in the Application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC and was supported by specific objections regarding the authenticity of
the documents. However, the Trial Court failed to consider and enquire into
these foundational facts, thereby rendering the decision bad in law.
32. The Appellant’s claim to have an equitable share in the Property,
based on an Oral Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Barua, the original Lessees,
wherein she was to fulfil specific terms including arranging funds upto 80%
of the proposed reconstruction cost through bank loans, was neither
adjudicated nor considered by the learned Trial Court. Despite asserting that
her possession and investment were made pursuant to this Arrangement, the
learned Trial Court failed to examine the existence of this Agreement for re-
construction. The learned Trial Court also declined to implead Mr. and Mrs.
Barua as necessary parties, or summon them as crucial witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 8 of 20
33. Reliance is placed on Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Vinod Kumar Alag, decided on 24.10.1990.
34. The Appellant further asserted that the unexplained disappearance of
Mr. Prabir Barua and Mrs. Kana Barua from the premises in August, 2024,
without prior notice or any communication to the Appellant, coupled with
the fact that they being non-contactable even by the Officers of another Trial
Court, raises serious concerns.
35. The Agreement to Sell, etc. dated 27.08.2024, bear their signatures,
but Mr. Barua passed away on 08.10.2024 as was later confirmed. This fact
of his demise, was not disclosed to the learned Trial Court during the
proceedings nor his Will was probated or mutation effected in the DDA
records. The learned Trial Court’s Decree ordering eviction of the Appellant
with one month of the Order dated 28.05.2025 and the payment of rent
calculated at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per month from 01.11.2023, is based on
a speculative jural relationship, which has not been established either
through the evidence or witnesses that should have been called to establish
the truth.
36. The landlord-tenant relationship has not been examined through
cogent evidence. No proper issues have been framed and the disputed
questions of fact have been decided, without allowing the matter being put
to trial. The Appellant had categorically denied the existence of tenancy
under Mr. and Mrs. Barua or the Respondents and had challenged the
validity and admissibility of the alleged Rent Agreement and Legal Notice,
which were both claimed to be forged, unregistered, unverified and not
supported by the witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 9 of 20
37. Despite Appellant having taken objections in the Application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and in the Reply to Order 12 Rule 6 CPC , the learned
Trial Court failed to conduct even a minimum enquiry for establishing the
basic ingredients of contractual or jural relationship between the parties.
38. Reliance is placed on Karam Kapahi & Ors. vs. M/s Lal Chand Public
Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753 and Md. Nooman & Ors. vs. Md. Jabed
Alam & Ors. , 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1051 wherein for possession on the
rent-based claims, it was essential to establish:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit land?
(ii) Whether the sale deed is genuine, valid, and
supported by consideration?
[[[
(iii) Whether any landlord-tenant relationship exists
between the parties?
39. Had the Appellant been afforded a fair opportunity through a regular
trial, she would have been able to establish not only the absence of jural
relationship, but also expose the suspicious circumstances surrounding the
Respondents’ claims.
40. The Appellant asserts that the only title document on record,
establishes DDA as the owner of the Suit Property. Mr. Prabir Barua and
Mrs. Kana Barua had been allotted the plot under a concessional Lease
Policy for displaced persons. No building plan sanction, Completion
Certification or Occupation Certificate, has been placed on record in respect
of the two-storied house. There are no separate proprietary or possessory
rights over the structure, which can be claimed by the Respondents, without
establishing legal title to the land. No documents have been produced by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 10 of 20
Respondents showing mutation, transfer or assignment of leasehold rights in
their favour.
41. It is further claimed that the GPA allegedly executed by Mr. Prabir
Barua in favour of the Respondents, has become null and void upon his
demise in October, 2013 and cannot form any basis for collection of rent to
assert ownership rights. The so-called Agreement to Sell does not define any
saleable property nor reflects sale consideration nor is supported by
registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 . This Agreement
is vitiated by forgery and fabrication of signatures, as shown by the medical
incapacity of Mrs. Barua and the missing status of Mr. Barua.
42. The jural relationship rests solely on two unverified and inherently
suspicious documents; a so-called rent agreement and a Notice, both of
which are forged, unregistered/unverified and devoid of legal sanctity.
43. The Appellant denies signing any Rent Agreement with Mr. and Mrs.
Barua. The original documents have not been placed on record, and the
unverified photocopy, thereby fall foul of Sections 61-65 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 , which requires primary evidence, unless legally
exempted. The purported Rent Agreement conspicuously excludes the name
of Mrs. Kana Barua and the Appellant’s husband, despite all previous
monetary transactions including cheques, occurring from and to joint
accounts. This contradicts the consistent pattern of financial dealings and
undermines the credibility of the document.
44. The bank statements of Mr. and Mrs. Barua, submitted by the
Respondents, show that many cheques were credited from the joint account
of the Appellant, out of which only three cheques were of Rs.27,000/-, dated
at irregular intervals. The learned Trial Court, by ignoring the last cheque of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 11 of 20
Rs.20,000/- credited on 22.11.2023, incorrectly inferred a consistent
monthly rent of Rs.27,000/-, payable from 01.11.2023.
45. The signatures on Legal Notice dated 29.08.2024 of Mr. Prabir Barua,
appear to be forged as Mr. Barua has already disappeared and later found to
have died, thereby raising serious questions about the authenticity,
authorship and timing of the Legal Notice.
46. While the Appellant’s husband had signed the Legal Notice in receipt
thereof, the Respondent who presented the Notice, did not countersign the
same at the time of delivery, despite allegedly demanding Rs.6,00,000/- in
cash, making the delivery procedurally and evidentially suspect.
47. The Appellant has placed reliance on Union of India vs. Ibrahim
Uddin , (2012) 8 SCC 148; Meghmala vs. G. Narasimha Reddy , (2010) 8
SCC 383 and K.K. Verma vs. Union of India , AIR 1954 MP 44.
48. It is claimed that the learned Trial Court’s reliance on these
questionable documents to conclude a relationship of landlord-tenant, is
legally untenable and factually unsustainable.
49. In the end, it is claimed that she is a bona fide resident of the Suit
Property having entered into the possession, pursuant to an Oral Agreement
with the original Lessees, Mr. and Mrs. Barua. She is a legitimate claimant
to her share in the property post-reconstruction, whereas the Respondents
have failed to establish any lawful title or interest or to demonstrate that they
have stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owners.
50. A prayer is, therefore, made that the impugned Order under Order 12
Rule 6 CPC, be set-aside .
51. The Appellant had also filed the Written Submissions in support of
her contentions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 12 of 20
52. Written Submissions had also been filed on behalf of the
Respondents, who have stated that the Appellant was inducted as a tenant in
the Suit premises vide Lease Deed dated 19.05.2023 and has not paid rent
since November, 2023 to the erstwhile owners/the present owners i.e. the
Respondents. She had been directed to clear the arrears of rent, which had
accumulated to more than Rs.5,00,000/-, within a period of one month, vide
Order dated 28.05.2025, despite which she has failed to deposit the rent. The
Appellant has abused the process of the Court by not depositing the Court
fee and is not making the payment of Arrears of Rent, on a regular monthly
basis.
53. The Respondents are now the owners/landlords of the Suit Property
on the basis of the registered Agreement to Sell, Will, GPA dated
27.08.2024, having purchased it from Mr. Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana
Barua, the erstwhile owners of the Suit Property. The entire sale
consideration has been paid to the erstwhile owners and possession has
already been taken by the Respondents.
54. The mutation has been carried out in the records of MCD, BSES and
Delhi Jal Board. Therefore, the Respondents have stepped into the shoes of
the erstwhile owners and have become the exclusive owners and landlords of
the Suit Property.
55. As per Clause 20 of the registered Agreement to Sell dated
27.08.2024, the Respondents are entitled to receive/collect the rent from the
Appellant.
56. The Respondents further asserted that the Lease of the Appellant,
expired by efflux of time on 18.04.2024 and there was no requirement of
serving her with a Notice. However, as a matter of abundant caution, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 13 of 20
erstwhile owners had sent a Notice dated 29.08.2024, through Speed Post
asking her to hand over the peaceful, vacant and physical possession of the
Suit Property, after the expiry of 10 days from the receipt of Notice. The
Appellant was informed about the sale of the Property to the Respondents
and that they were authorised to collect the Arrears of Rent/Mesne Profits.
57. The Appellant has become the unauthorised occupant in the premises
w.e.f. 19.08.2024 and is liable to pay damages @Rs.2,000/- per day, till the
vacation of the Property, in terms of the Lease Deed. The Appellant in her
Written Statement has not been able to make any defence and it contains
vague denials and admissions. Therefore, the Application under Order 12
Rule 6 has been rightly decreed by the learned Trial Court.
58. It is further contended that only a sham defence has been taken in the
Written Statement, while the GPA, ATS, etc. dated 27.08.2024 have not
been disputed but it is alleged that there is no privity of contract between the
parties to seek possession or to collect rent.
59. Reliance is placed on Ghanshyam vs. Yogendra Rathi , AIR 2023 SC
2754 and Bimla Chopra & Anr. vs. Kuldeep, RFA No. 240/2015, decided on
02.05.2023 wherein it has been held that on the basis of the registered
Agreement to Sell, the Transferee gets the possessory title under Section
53A of the Transfer of Property Act and can maintain a Suit for eviction,
arrears of rent etc. against the tenant.
60. The Appellant in her Written Statement had claimed that the Lease
Deed dated 19.05.2023 was not a genuine document, but has not specified
the basis for so claiming. Moreover, the denial of the Lease Deed dated
19.05.2023, is totally evasive. In the case of Badat & Co. Bombay vs. East
India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538, it has been held that if the denial of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 14 of 20
fact is not specific but evasive, it shall be taken to be admitted and the
admission itself being proved, no further proof was necessary.
61. It is an admitted fact by the Appellant that she was inducted as a
tenant and has not cleared the arrears of rent even despite having received
the Notice dated 18.05.2024 and has also failed to vacate the tenanted
premises. The Appellant in her Written Statement had claimed that she had a
written Agreement with the erstwhile owners in regard to reconstruction but
during her oral arguments, she claimed that it was an oral Agreement. The
plea taken by the Appellant, is not only contradictory but is also sham, bogus
and moonshine defence.
62. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the Appeal, which is
liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
63. Plaintiffs / Respond had filed a Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits
against the Appellant / Defendant by asserting that she was a tenant inducted
in the Suit Property under the Lease Agreement dated 19.05.2023 at a rate of
Rs.27,000/- per month, which she defaulted in paying from November 2023,
and thereby, after serving a Legal Notice dated 29.08.2020, the Suit for
Possession was filed, which has been decreed vide impugned Judgement
dated 28.05.2025 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC .
64. The first contention of the Appellant was that there was no clear
admission of the Appellant being the tenant in the suit property.
65. The perusal of the pleadings reflect that the Appellant has nowhere
denied that she had been inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owners Mr.
Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana Barua vide Lease Agreement dated 14.05.2023.
The challenge of the Appellant was essentially on the locus and the status of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 15 of 20
the erstwhile owners and the present Respondents, but it was never centred
around her not being a tenant in the Suit Premises.
66. Learned District Judge had rightly concluded that there was an
admission on the part of the Appellant, who did not deny being a tenant in
the Suit Property. It was observed that,
Since in the present case, the Defendant has failed to
specifically deny the fact of letting-out of Suit Property to her
by the erstwhile owners vide Lease Deed dated 19.05.2023 for
a period of 11 months at monthly rent of Rs. 27,000/-,
therefore, as per O.8 R.5 CPC, the said facts are deemed to be
admitted by her.
…
Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis and discussion, it is
clear that there is admission on the part of defendant
regarding jural relationship of landlord-tenant between the
plaintiffs and defendant , regarding the rate of rent to be
Rs.27,000/- per month and that the tenancy was terminated vide
notice dated 29.08.2024 and the defendant has not handed over
the possession of the suit property to plaintiffs.
67. The Appellant had vaguely suggested that there was an Agreement
between her and the erstwhile owners, for re-construction of the Suit
Property , for which she and her husband had agreed to contribute. However,
while it only being a suggestive idea, it did not contain any specifics. There
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 16 of 20
was nothing indicated, as to when the Agreement was entered into or when
the same was to take effect.
68. Pertinently, there is no averment whatsoever that the re-construction
of the Property was ever commenced, since she came into the property in
May 2023. There may have been an understanding between the Appellant
and her husband with the erstwhile owners, but it was only an idea in future
and was not any reflection in regard to their induction in the Suit Property in
the capacity of tenants.
69. Further, admittedly, though the Appellant entered into the property in
14.05.2023, but no re-construction was commenced till they sold the
property to the present respondents on 27.08.2024.
70. The Rent Agreement dated 14.05.2023 was executed between the
parties, but the Appellant tried to avoid it, by claiming it to be inherently
suspicious, forged, unregistered / unverified document having no legal
sanctity. On what basis was it claimed to be a suspicious, unverified or
forged document, has not being explained by the Appellant.
71. Another significant aspect was her claim that she had transferred the
amounts of Rs.27,000/- on 23.05.2023 and similar amount of Rs.27,000/-
had been credited on 11.07.2023 and 10.10.2023, aside from a payment of
Rs.9,000/- on 17.06.2023 and Rs.10,000/- on 13.09.2023 and lastly
Rs.20,000/- in November 2023, in the joint account of both erstwhile
owners. The payment of these amounts clearly coincides with the terms of
the Lease Agreement. There is no other explanation whatsoever forthcoming
from the Appellant, to explain her transfer of these amounts into the joint
account of the erstwhile owners, except that it was towards the rent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 17 of 20
72. The sporadic payments in the joint account, out of which three were in
the sum of Rs. 27,000/-, in the joint account of the erstwhile owners, is a
clear corroboration of payment of rent, pursuant to the Lease agreement
dated 14.05.2023. By no stretch of interpretation, can it be said to be the
contribution towards the re-construction Agreement.
73. It was a case of the Plaintiff that the Appellant stopped paying rent
from November 2023, which again is corroborated by the Bank Statement.
Therefore, it is amply established from the Lease Agreement, which is duly
corroborated by the Bank Statement, that the Appellant had been inducted as
a tenant and had paid rent up to November 2023. Thus, learned District
Judge has rightly concluded that there was an admission on the part of the
Appellant about being a tenant in respect of which there was no specific
denial.
74. The second challenge taken by the Appellant was that there was no
privity of contract with the Respondent, who had no locus standi to file the
Suit for Possession. According to her, she had the Agreement with the
erstwhile owners and had no privity of contract with the Appellants.
75. The contention raised by her was that Mr. Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana
Barua were not the owners and the actual owner was DDA, which had
allotted the property to the erstwhile owners vide a Lease Deed. It was
claimed that the erstwhile owners being only the lessees in the Suit Property,
could only create a sub-lease in favour of the Appellant and thus, there was
no relationship of landlord-tenant, but of lessee-sub lessee between the
parties .
76. This contention is completely fallacious as the erst while owners, Mr.
Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana Barua, were holding ownership rights and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 18 of 20
admittedly, the Appellant had been inducted into the property by them; she
is estopped from challenging their status in regard to the property, in terms
of S.116 Indian Evidence Act.
77. The Appellant has challenged the sale documents i.e. Agreement to
Sell GPA, Will etc. dated 26.08.2024 executed in favour of the plaintiffs.
She has asserted that suddenly Mr. Prabir Barua disappeared and the
Plaintiffs / Respondent started asserting their ownership in the Suit Property.
She raised serious concern about the genuineness of the transaction.
However, these objections taken by the Appellant, is merely to avoid her
liability in respect of the suit property.
78. To corroborate that the respondents had stepped into the shoes of the
erstwhile owners, they had given a Legal Notice dated 29.08.2024, wherein
it was clearly indicated that the Respondents were entitled to collect the rent
in place of erstwhile owners. The Appellant admitted the receipt of Notice
through her husband.
79. The only ground for challenging this Legal Notice was that Mr. Prabir
Barua and Smt. Kana Barua had not personally informed or contacted the
Appellant. This in itself can be no ground to create suspicion on the Title
documents, on the basis of which the Respondent claimed to have stepped
into the shoes of erstwhile owners. The Sale documents may not confer an
absolute title on the Respondent, but definitely are sufficient for them to step
into the shoes of erstwhile owner and claim the Rent. In this regard, GPA
dated 26.08.2024 executed in favour of the Respondent, cannot be
overlooked.
80. It was also contended by the Appellant that she had filed an
Application under O VII Rule 11 CPC , which has not been decided.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 19 of 20
However, as per her own submissions, the grounds taken in this Application,
were the same grounds taken by her in reply to the Application under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC , which have been duly considered while deciding this
Application. This contention of the Appellant, holds no merit.
81. Learned District Judge in the light of the averments in the pleadings,
rightly concluded that the Respondents having stepped into the shoes of the
erstwhile owners, became the landlords and were entitled to seek possession
of the Suit Property.
82. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed
along with pending Applications.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2026/RS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:50:26
RFA 556/2025 Page 20 of 20