V P Tandon vs Ved Prakash & Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Reserved on: 31 July, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 27 October, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 30 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010098772020
+ RSA 9/2020 & CM APPL.3098/2020
Shri. V P Tandon Through his LRs
a. Mrs. Praveen Chawla
Wife of Mr. Raj Kumar Chawla
Daughter of Late Shri V.P. Tandon
Resident of 117-A, Central Avenue
Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062;
b. Mrs. Meena Khanna
Wife of Mr. Varinder Khanna
Daughter of Late Shri. V.P. Tandon
Resident of B-20, Bhagwati Housing Society,
Santa Cruz West, Linking Road Extension,
Mumbai -40054.
c. Rakesh Tandon
Son of Late Shri V.P. Tandon
Resident of B-233, Greater Kailash – I,
New Delhi -110048
d. Rajesh Tandon
Son of Late Shri V. P. Tandon
Resident of B-233, Greater Kailash-I
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 1 of 27
New Delhi -110048 … Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra and Mr. Dilip
Kumar, Advs.
versus
1. VED PRAKASH
Son of Late Shri Rameshwar Pal
Resident of 138 B, Zamrudpur,
New Delhi -11048
2. Sukh Pal
Son of Late Shri Rameshwar Pal
Resident of House No. 10, Zamrudpur,
New Delhi -110048 …Respondents
Through: Mr. Shashi Shanker, Mr. Arnav
Dhama, Ms. Apoorva Mishra, Mr.
Priyank Tiwari, Mr. Manish, Advs.
# CNR No. DLHC010160512020
+ RSA54/2020 & CM APPL. 9888/2020 & CM APPL. 65178/20230
1. VED PRAKASH
Son of Late Shri Rameshwar Pal
Resident of 138 B, Zamrudpur,
New Delhi -11048
2. Sukh Pal
Son of Late Shri Rameshwar Pal
Resident of House No. 10, Zamrudpur,
New Delhi -110048 …Appellants
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 2 of 27
Through: Mr. Shashi Shanker, Mr. Arnav
Dhama, Ms. Apoorva Mishra, Mr.
Priyank Tiwari, Mr. Manish, Advs.
versus
Shri. V P Tandon (Since Deceased) Through his LRs
a. Mrs. Praveen Chawla
Wife of Mr. Raj Kumar Chawla
Daughter of Late Shri V.P. Tandon
Resident of 117-A, Central Avenue
Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062;
b. Mrs. Meena Khanna
Wife of Mr. Varinder Khanna
Daughter of Late Shri. V.P. Tandon
Resident of B-20, Bhagwati Housing Society,
Santa Cruz West, Linking Road Extension,
Mumbai -40054.
c. Rakesh Tandon
Son of Late Shri V.P. Tandon
Resident of B-233, Greater Kailash – I,
New Delhi -110048
d. Rajesh Tandon
Son of Late Shri V. P. Tandon
Resident of B-233, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi -110048
… Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 3 of 27
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra and Mr. Dilip
Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The Regular Second Appeal No. 54/2020 under Section 100 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed
by Plaintiff/Ved Prakash and Sukhpal against the Judgment dated
15.11.2019 of the learned Additional District Judge , whereby the learned
ADJ partly set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2018 of the
learned Civil Judge to the extent of decree for possession, but granted
arrears to Plaintiffs of rent @ Rs. 242 per month along with interest @ 15%
per annum, for the three years preceding to the date of filing of the suit and
pendente lite till the date of realisation.
2. The Regular Second Appeal No. 9/2020 under Section 100 CPC has
been filed by Defendant/V.P. Tandon against the Judgment dated
15.11.2019 of the learned Additional District Judge , whereby the learned
ADJ awarded the damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the favour of the Plaintiff/
Ved Prakash and Sukhpal .
3. The Plaintiffs/Ved Prakash and Sukhpal had filed Civil Suit No. 461
of 2014 ( C.S. No. 51388/2016 ) for Recovery of Possession, arrears of rent
of Rs. 1,40,000/- with effect from January 2013 to August 2014 besides
outstanding electricity and water charges; d amages/mesne profits @ Rs.
1,000/- per day w.e.f. 01.10.2014 till the peaceful possession is handed over
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 4 of 27
to the Plaintiff and for restraining the Defendant from creating third party
rights, in the suit property.
4. The facts in brief as narrated in the Plaint, was that the Plaintiffs were
the absolute owners of the Property bearing No. 1-E, Village Zamrudpur,
New Delhi – 110048 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) . It was
explained that the property was owned by S. Tarlochan Singh Mehta, who
sold the property to Smt. Surinder Kaur, vide Sale Deed dated 16.04.1999
and finally the suit property was purchased by the Plaintiffs.
5. At the time of the purchase of this property from erstwhile owner,
Defendant/V.P. Tandon was already existing as a tenant in the suit premises,
having been inducted by S. Tarlochan Singh Mehta, the erstwhile owner.
Thus, the Plaintiffs after purchase of the suit property, stepped into the shoes
of the erstwhile owner/landlord and were so recognised by the Defendant.
6. The Defendant continued to make the payment of the rent till
November 2007 but, thereafter, defaulted in paying the rent. After much
persuasion, the Defendant agreed to clear the outstanding rents and also
agreed to enhance the rent. The Defendant paid the rent @ Rs. 7000/- per
month till December, 2012 but thereafter, he again stopped paying rent.
7. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant was having his own property
near the tenanted suit premises, from where he was running his office. The
Defendant gave major portion of the said premises situated at the backside
of the tenanted premises of the Plaintiff on rent and was earning
handsomely.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 5 of 27
8. The Plaintiff asserted that their sons had completed their studies and
the Plaintiff required the premises, to start their business. Due to the
aforesaid reason and also for non-payment of rent, the Plaintiffs served
Legal Notice dated 19.08.2014 upon the Defendant, to vacate the suit
property and hand over the peaceful possession to the Plaintiffs; to clear the
arrears of rent of Rs 1,40,000/- w.e.f. January, 2013 till August, 2014 and to
pay the mesne damages/profits @ Rs. 1,000/- per day w.e.f. 01.10.2014, till
handing over the peaceful possession of the suit property.
9. The Defendant, however, despite service of legal Notice, neither
replied to it nor vacates the premises or clear the arrears of rent. Hence, the
Plaintiff filed the Suit for Recovery of Possession, arrears of rent,
damages/mesne profits at the aforesaid rates.
10. The Defendant/V.P. Tandon in his Written Statement , took the
preliminary objections that the Suit was barred under Section 50 of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as the rate of rent was much less than Rs.
3,500/- per month. Also, the Suit had not been verified in accordance with
Order VI Rule 15 CPC. Moreover, by virtue of Section 41(h) of the Specific
Relief Act, entire claim of the Plaintiff does not have any merit and the
Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
11. It is further claimed that even if the claim of the Plaintiff is assumed
to be correct and true, then also the Plaintiffs were required to intimate the
Defendant about the purchase of the property by sending a “ Letter of
Atonement” , which was never tendered to the Defendant. The averments
made in the Plaint are vague, unnecessary, scandalous and frivolous which
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 6 of 27
are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC . The Defendant is a
senior citizen aged about 82 years and has been suffering from innumerable
old age ailments including chronic heart disease.
12. The Defendant claimed that he was a tenant of the suit property since
last 40 years, at the initial rate of rent as Rs. 200/-, exclusive of water and
electricity charges. Moreover, the tenancy was commercial in nature , as the
Defendant had been using the premises as the godown, right from the date of
commencement of tenancy. The original landlord of the suit property, Smt.
Krishan Kaur had let out the suit property @ Rs. 200/- per month and the
Defendant has been enjoying the continuous uninterrupted possession of the
suit property, as a bona fide tenant. The rent receipt dated 13.07.1981 issued
by Smt. Krishan Kaur in the capacity of the owner/landlord wherein the rent
was Rs. 200/- per month, is annexed. Smt. Krishan Kaur sold the suit
property to one Smt. Surinder Kaur, after which the Defendant started
paying rent to Smt. Surinder Kaur .
13. It was denied that the Plaintiff are the owner of the suit property; it
was asserted that they are not in possession of the even a single document in
regard to their title in the suit property. The Plaintiff must produce the title
deeds, to substantiate their ownership rights in the suit property.
14. The Defendant further stated that somewhere in January 2003, he
received a letter from Smt. Surinder Kaur informing the Defendant that she
has sold the property to one Ved Prakash and one Y. S. Verma , and further
about the transfer of title in the suit property to them. However, as a vigilant
tenant and being confused by such undated and apparently forged
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 7 of 27
information, he immediately wrote a Reply dated 24.03.2003 to all the three
persons, namely Smt. Surinder Kaur , Ved Prakash , and Y. S. Verma
requesting them to furnish the title deeds and to substantiate the ownership
rights. However, till date, none of the three persons have replied to his
Letter. Suddenly, the Plaintiffs indolently woke up to their fabricated and
cooked up a story, leading to the filing of the present litigation.
15. On merits , a similar defence as taken in the preliminary objections,
was reiterated. It was asserted that Plaintiff No.1 is a goonda element in the
Zamrudpur vicinity and has been constantly harassing the Defendant, on one
pretext or the other. One such example is that the Plaintiffs have let out five
shops in the same premises of the suit property intentionally to fish, chicken,
and mutton sellers, which is creating massive havoc and problems for the
Defendant and other residents in the area. Such pollution spreading activity
in the Zamrudpur Area without any license or permission from MCD, DDA,
local patwari, etc., is a blatant crime. It was asserted that the fact that the
Plaintiffs have not furnished any copy of Receipt issued by them, against the
alleged payment of rents by the Defendants from the year 2003 till date, is
highly illegal, fraudulent and amusingly perse nonsensical . It was,
therefore, submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
16. The Plaintiffs in the Replication denied the assertions made in the
Written Statement and claimed that the Defendant is an illegal, unauthorized
occupier of the suit property. It was submitted that as far as the ownership is
concerned, the same was never disputed as admitted by the defendant, that
he wrote one letter in the year 2003 to Plaintiffs and also demanded the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 8 of 27
ownership documents, which itself shows that the change of hands of
ownership was in the knowledge of the defendant and only then he tendered
rent in respect of the suit property to the Plaintiffs.
17. It was further asserted that the rent of the tenanted property, cannot be
Rs. 200/- or Rs. 242/- as alleged by the Defendant, as on one hand the
Defendant submitted that the property is a commercial property in the
locality of South-East, Delhi and on the other hand, claims that the last rent
paid was less than Rs. 3500/-, which is not only contradictory to his own
act/conduct, but the same is arbitrary, mischievous and malafide in nature.
18. It is asserted that the Defendant has admitted his possession of the
tenanted premises, but has failed to tender rent to anyone, including the
Plaintiffs. Despite being a tenant in the suit property, the Defendant never
attempted to deposit the rent before a court of law, even if his contention
was that he was not making the payment of the rents to the Plaintiffs, since
2003. It can be presumed that the Defendant had been paying rent to
Plaintiffs, until he stopped making payments in January, 2013.
Consequently, when the Plaintiffs demanded the outstanding rent from the
Defendant, the Defendant portrayed the demand as a threat, allegedly with
malafide intent. Therefore, the only efficacious remedy available to the
Plaintiffs was to seek possession, by virtue of the Suit.
19. It was denied that the rent was less than Rs. 3,500/- per month or that
the suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. In view of
the admission that the Defendant has been occupying the Suit Property as a
tenant, the other averments made in the Plaint were reaffirmed, and it was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 9 of 27
submitted that the Suit of the Plaintiffs be decreed, under Order XII Rule 6
CPC.
20. The Learned Civil Judge framed the issues on 02.02.2015 , as under:
1) Whether the present suit has been instituted without any cause of
action? OPD.
2) Whether the present suit is barred by Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958? OPD.
3) Whether the present suit is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific
Relief Act? OPD.
4) Whether the plaintiffs have approached this Court with clean hands
and suppressed material facts? OPD.
5) Whether the plaintiffs are not the landlords of the tenanted premise?
OPD.
6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of recovery of
possession of the tenanted premise, as prayed for? OPP.
7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover arrears of rent of Rs.
1,40,000/- as prayed for? OPP.
8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover outstanding electricity
and water charges as prayed for? OPP.
9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover mesne profits, for which
period and at what rate? OPP.
10) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as
prayed for? OPP.
11) Relief.
21. The PW-1 Ved Prakash , Plaintiff No. 1, tendered his evidence by way
of Affidavit, Ex.PW-1/1 , and proved the following documents:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 10 of 27
22. PW-2 Vishal Choudhary tendered his Evidence by way of Affidavit,
Ex.PW-2/A and stated that the average commercial rent for any property in
Zamrudpur area fetches rent to the tune of Rs. 25/- per square foot and that
as per his knowledge, the area under the occupation of the defendant is
around 1000 sq. ft. and the rent of the property should be Rs. 25,000/- per
month, approximately.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 11 of 27
23. The Defendant, V. P. Tandon examined himself as DW-1 and
tendered his Evidence by way of Affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A . He proved the
Rent Receipt dated 13.07.1981, Mark PW1/D1 .
24. The Learned Civil Judge , on appreciation of the evidence, observed
that the Defendant had admitted that he was informed by the erstwhile
tenant Smt. Surinder Kaur , regarding the transfer of ownership of the
property to the Plaintiffs. Not only this, the Plaintiffs have proved the chain
of documents, Ex. PW-1/L to Ex. PW-1/S, thereby establishing that they are
the owners of the suit property. The Defendant had admitted being a tenant
in the suit property, for the last 40 years. Therefore, the relationship of
landlord and tenant, was held to be proved.
25. It was further observed that the Defendant had admitted not paying
rent to any person since January, 2013. Considering the fact that the suit
property was commercial in nature and it was situated in South-East Delhi,
the rate of rent of the suit property cannot be presumed to be less than Rs.
5,000 per month and thus, the Plaintiff was entitled to rent of Rs. 5,000/- per
month, qua the suit property from January, 2013 till filing of Suit. Further,
Mesne profits were also granted at the same rate, i.e., Rs.5,000/-, per month,
from the date of filing the suit till the peaceful and vacant possession was
handed over to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants were also restrained from
creating third-party rights in the suit property. The Suit of the Plaintiffs
was, accordingly, decreed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 12 of 27
26. Aggrieved by the judgment of learned Civil Judge , the
Defendant/V.P. Tandon preferred a Regular Civil Appeal under Section
96 CPC bearing RCA No. 129 of 2018 .
27. The Learned ADJ , on re-appreciation of the evidence , found that
the Plaintiffs had proved their documents of title and thus, it was held that
the Plaintiff was the owner/landlord of the suit property, and the Defendant
was admittedly a tenant. Therefore, there existed a relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties.
28. However, on appreciation of evidence, it was found that the plaintiff
had miserably failed to prove that the rent was ever Rs.5,000/- or Rs.7,000/-.
In fact, the Plaintiff had admitted the Agreement to Sell dated 31.12.2002 ,
Ex. PW1/DX1 and Possession Letter dated 31.12.2002 , PW1/DX2 , wherein
the rate of rent was mentioned as Rs. 242/- per month. It was held that
Plaintiffs had not placed on record, any written contract showing
enhancement of rent from Rs. 242/- to Rs. 7000/- nor any Rent Receipt
having signature of the Defendant, to show that he had ever given the rent of
Rs. 7000/-. Further, there is no specific stipulation of rental income received
from the Defendant, in any other ITRs.
29. It was observed that it was highly improbable that the rent was
enhanced upon mutual agreement between the parties, from Rs. 242/- to Rs.
7000/- per month. Further, the rent cannot be unilaterally enhanced without
following the procedure of Section 6 and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act
and that too, beyond the increase of 10% of the last paid rent in the interval
of 3 years at a time. The reasoning of Trial Court that the property cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 13 of 27
presumed to be less than Rs. 5,000/- per month by virtue of being
commercial in nature and is situated in South East Delhi, was held to be not
based on facts or laws. It was, thus, concluded that the rate of rent was
Rs. 242/- per month and not Rs.7,000/- as was asserted by the Plaintiff
and the findings of the Trial Court on the point of rent was wrong.
30. However, the Learned District Judge observed that the Suit for
Recovery of arrears of rent was maintainable, since there existed no
provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act in regard to the recovery of arrears
of rent. Consequently, the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.242/- per
month were granted to the Plaintiff from a period of three years
immediately prior to the date of institution of the Suit. Further, it was
directed that the Defendant shall also continue making the payment of the
rent @ Rs. 242 per month, for the future period. In addition, damages of
Rs. 2,00,0000/- were awarded to the Plaintiff on account of harassment
and the conduct of the Defendants.
31. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Defendant/V.P. Tandon
has filed a Regular Second Appeal, RSA No. 9/2020 , challenging the
Judgment dated 15.11.2019, granting arrears of rent and damages .
32. The grounds of challenge are that it has not appreciated that once the
suit for possession was held to be barred by law, then the suit for damages is
also barred and damages cannot be awarded. The damages on account of
harassment and conduct of the Defendant, could not have been granted
against the Defendant, as it was the Plaintiff who had defaulted in following
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 14 of 27
the procedure of law, and it is the Defendant who had been illegally
burdened.
33. It was further contended that when the it was held that Suit was
governed under the Delhi Rent Control Act as the rent was less than Rs.
3,500/-; mesne profits and damages were also barred, and the Suit was liable
to be dismissed. It is, therefore, prayed that the Impugned Judgment dated
15.11.2019 , granting damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the Defendant, be
set aside.
34. The Plaintiffs/Ved Prakash and Sukhpal, has also filed a Regular
Second Appeal, RSA No. 54/2020, as aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment
dated 15.11.2019 of the learned ADJ, whereby the decree in respect of
possession granted by learned Civil Judge , had been set aside.
35. The first challenge is that the Plaintiffs had successfully proved the
documents establishing their right in the suit property, to get the property
vacated from the Defendant, besides recovering the arrears of rent and
damages. The evidence has not been appreciated correctly, and the
observations and the findings suffer from perversity and are self-
contradictory.
36. It had been ignored by the First Appellate Court that subsequent
documents, i.e. the registered General Power of Attorney and Will dated
26.08.2003 executed in favor of the erstwhile owner, and the subsequent
Registered Will and General Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2003 executed
in favor of the Plaintiffs qua the suit property, were proved as Ex.PW1/P ,
Ex.PW1/Q, Ex.PW1/R , and Ex.PW1/S , respectively. These documents had
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 15 of 27
been deliberately suppressed by the Defendant and have not been rightly
appreciated by the First Appellate Court.
37. It is claimed that all the witnesses examined by the Plaintiff, clearly
deposed in consonance with the facts adduced by the Plaintiff, and there was
nothing contradictory in the claim of the Plaintiff despite which, a
contradictory Order has been passed by the First Appellate Court.
38. The second challenge is that while on one hand, the Defendant has
been directed to pay arrears of rent @ Rs 242 per month from the last 3
years, but it has been directed the Defendant to continue making payment of
rent @ Rs. 242/- per month for future period, to the Plaintiffs. The damages
of Rs. 2,00,000/- have been awarded in favour of the Plaintiffs @ Rs.
5,000/- per month for illegal retention of the suit property by the Defendant,
for a period of more than 40 months, despite which the rate of rent has been
erroneously held as Rs. 242/- per month.
39. It is, therefore, prayed that the Impugned Judgment and Decree
dated 15.11.2019, be set aside.
40. The Plaintiffs/Ved Prakash and Sukhpal , in their Written
Submissions , submitted that the evidence has been rightly appreciated by
the learned Civil Judge in deciding the Civil Suit and holding that no bar of
Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was attracted.
41. The Plaintiffs had been rightly held to be the landlord of the suit
property and defendant was the tenant. It was, therefore, rightly held that
the Plaintiff were entitled to possession. It was further held that the tenant
had not admittedly paid the rent, at least since January, 2013. Considering
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 16 of 27
the commercial nature of the suit property, the rent of the suit property
cannot be presumed less than Rs. 25,000/- per month, though the learned
Civil Judge presumed it to be not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month. The
learned ADJ erroneously interpreted the Income Tax Returns filed by the
Plaintiff from time to time, to conclude that rate of rent as claimed, was not
established.
42. The learned ADJ observed that the conduct of the tenant in not
depositing or tendering the rent, was only with a view to harass the landlord
or to extort money. Considering the conduct of the Defendant, a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- has been awarded to the Plaintiff as damages. It is asserted that if
Rs. 2,00,000/- is divided by 36 months, the amount comes to Rs. 5,555/- per
month, which is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month and thus, Civil Court had
the jurisdiction to decree the Suit of the Plaintiff. It is asserted that the
Judgment of the learned ADJ is erroneous and is contrary to the evidence as
was rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Court, to decree the Suit of the
Plaintiff for possession.
43. The First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 96
CPC and interfered with the findings of the learned Civil Judge , which has
recorded the evidence, observed the demeanour of witnesses, and
appreciated the testimony firsthand. Furthermore, there was no perversity
demonstrated in the findings of the learned Civil Judge . Despite this, the
First Appellate Court has merely substituted its own interpretation of
evidence, which is impermissible in law. The learned Civil Judge 's
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 17 of 27
conclusion regarding enhancement of rent, was a finding of fact which ought
not to have been interfered casually.
44. It is claimed that the First Appellate Court wrongly concluded that the
Plaintiff were unable to prove the enhancement of rent from Rs. 242/- to Rs.
7,000/-. The oral testimony of the Plaintiffs, commercial nature of the
property, prolonged possession, and market realities had been completely
ignored. The property is commercial in nature, having several rented
portions and is having substantial rental income from such rented units.
45. Admittedly, the property belonging to the Defendant, has a rental
income of Rs. 40,000/- per month, which has the same dimension and
locality. It is wholly unrealistic and contrary to ordinary human conduct, to
presume that a commercial property in South Delhi, continued with the rent
of Rs. 242/- per month for decades.
46. The learned ADJ incorrectly insisted upon documentary proof for
enhancement of rent. There is no legal requirement that enhancement of rent
must always be written, registered, or evidenced by formal receipts. The
tenancy Agreement can be oral, and enhancement of rent may also be oral,
which may be proved through conduct, surrounding circumstances,
admissions, and oral evidence. The learned ADJ adopted an unduly technical
approach, inconsistent with settled tenancy laws.
47. The tenant had miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence
to prove the rate of rent as Rs. 242/- per month. No rent receipts, rent
deposits, or any proceedings qua deposit of rent before the Rent Controller
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 18 of 27
or proof of statutory tenancy or proof of payment after the year 2007, had
been produced.
48. The burden shifted upon the Defendant/Tenant once the
Plaintiffs/Landlord established the prima facie case of enhancement of rent.
An adverse inference in terms of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act ought
to have been drawn against the Defendant. However, the learned ADJ
wrongly penalized the Plaintiffs for want of documentary evidence, while
ignoring the Defendant’s own failure to produce any records.
49. It is asserted that the learned ADJ observed that not only Defendant
stopped paying rent, but retained possession for years and failed to clear
arrears, which amounted to harassment of the Plaintiffs and occupied suit
property without justification. On one hand, the learned ADJ granted Rs.
2,00,000/- as damages for harassment, but on the other hand, denied the
eviction by observing that the Defendant was a bona fide protected tenant. It
is claimed that the Judgment is internally inconsistent, in extending the
protection of Delhi Rent Control Act.
50. The learned Civil Judge had already concluded that the rent was Rs.
7,000/- per month and therefore, the Civil Court jurisdiction was properly
invoked. The Judgment of the learned Civil Judge in the first instance was
correct.
51. Furthermore, the learned ADJ wrongly diluted the case of the
Plaintiffs in regard to the ownership, even though the Defendant had
admitted original tenancy, his admitted occupation, and communication of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 19 of 27
ownership transfer, thereby Plaintiff stepping into the shoes of previous
owner, in terms of Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act.
52. The learned Civil Judge had rightly appreciated the probabilities and
the conduct of the Parties, while decreeing the Suit of the Plaintiff. The First
Appellate Court, however, has adopted the criminal law standard of proof.
53. The Written Submissions were filed on behalf of Defendant ,
through his legal heirs. They asserted that the learned ADJ has erroneously
awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-, even though there existed
no prayer for the same. The relief not claimed cannot be granted by the
Court for which reliance is placed on Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal &
Anr. (2008) 17 SCC 491 and Allahabad University, etc. v. Geetanjali, with
Allahabad Degree College & Anr. vs. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors.,
2024 SCC Online SC 3776.
54. It is further stated that in the Agreement to Sell dated 31.12.2002 , it
had been clearly mentioned that the suit property was occupied by
Defendant/ Shri V.P Tandon, at a rent of Rs. 242/- per month. The learned
ADJ rightly held that the rent being Rs. 242/- per month and the tenancy of
Defendant was protected.
55. The learned Civil Judge had committed an error in deciding the issue
of rent, by concluding that the rent could not be less than Rs. 5,000/- and
failed to appreciate the Agreement to Sell dated 31.12.2002 and the Plaintiff
had failed to prove the rent was increased to Rs. 7,000/- per month.
Submissions heard and record perused.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 20 of 27
56. The first aspect which arises for consideration, is whether there exists
a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties i.e. Plaintiffs/Shri
Ved Prakash & Shri. Sukhpal and Defendant/Shri V.P. Tandon . The
Defendant has admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises
at a rate of Rs. 240/- per month. Subsequently, Mr S. Trilochan Singh sold
the property to Smt. Surinder Kaur vide Sale Deed dated 16.04.1999,
ExPW1/L .
57. In Para 13 of the Replication filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, it was
specifically mentioned that the Plaintiffs had entered into the shoes of the
erstwhile owner, after having purchased the suit property and the ownership
was not required for to be proved, but for clarity, the entire set of ownership
documents were filed by the Plaintiffs, on the record.
58. Further, the Defendant received a letter from Smt. Surinder Kaur,
informing him that she has sold the property to Ved Prakash and one Y.S.
Verma . Thereafter, the Defendant wrote a Reply dated 24.03.2003 , wherein,
the Defendant sought to furnish the title deed to him. Essentially, it is
established from the testimony and the averments of Defendant that he was a
tenant in the suit premises and that he was informed by Smt. Surinder Kaur
about the sale of the property to the Plaintiff No. 1/Ved Prakash.
59. Shri Ved Prakash, in his testimony as PW-1 , had produced the Sale
Deed dated 16.04.1999 , Ex.PW1/L vide which Sh. S. Trilochan Singh
Mehta sold the suit property to Smt. Surinder Kaur. Not only this, he
produced the Will dated 30.12.2002 , Ex.PW1/M ; General Power of
Attorney dated 30.12.2002 , Ex.PW1/N ; Undertaking and Affidavit dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 21 of 27
31.12.2002 ; Agreement to Sell dated 31.12.2002 , Ex.PW1/DX1 ; Possession
Letter dated 31.12.2002 , Ex.PW1/DX2 ; General Power of Attorney dated
26.08.2003 , ExPW1/O ; Will dated 26.08.2003 , Ex.PW1/Q ; Will dated
22.10.2003 , Ex.PW1/R and General Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2003 ,
Ex.PW1/S .
60. The Agreement to Sell dated 31.12.2002 was executed by Smt.
Surinder Kaur in favor of Sh. Ved Prakash and Sh. Y.S. Verma . Therefore,
it is fully established that the plaintiffs had acquired the ownership in
the suit property by virtue of the Agreement to Sell and Possession
Letter dated 31.12.2002, from the erstwhile owner, i.e., Smt. Surinder
Kaur. Having validly purchased the property, a fact not disputed by the
Defendant , it is established that Sh. Ved Prakash became the co-owner of
the suit property and stepped into the shoes of Smt. Surinder Kaur . This
fact was also in the knowledge of Defendant, as admitted by him. The
relationship of landlord and tenant is therefore, established between the
Parties, as has been held by the learned Civil Judge .
61. The second aspect is that whether the rate of rent was Rs. 242/- per
month or Rs. 7,000/- per month and consequently, the Suit is barred by
Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
62. The main objection taken by Defendant was that the rent was Rs.
242/- per month and therefore, the Suit for Possession and Recovery of
Arrears of rent/damages was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 22 of 27
63. The learned Civil Judge held that considering the location and nature
of the property i.e. commercial property in South-East Delhi, the rate of rent
of the suit property cannot be presumed to be less than Rs. 5,000 per month
and thus, the Plaintiff was granted rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month qua the suit
property from January 2013 till filing of suit. Further it observed that the suit
was not barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act and decreed the suit for
recovery of possession, as well as, arrears of rent/damages.
64. However, the learned ADJ , on re-appreciation of evidence, found the
rent to be Rs. 242/- per month and accordingly, held the suit to be barred by
limitation and barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act, and consequently
reversed the decree of possession as passed by the learned Civil Judge.
65. The Plaintiff No. 1/Ved Prakash in the cross-examination dated
15.05.2019 under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, was confronted with the
Agreement to Sell dated 31.12.2002 and Possession Letter dated 31.12.2002 ,
Ex.PW1/DX1 and Ex.PW1/DX2 respectively, which clearly mentioned that
“Back Portion: occupied by Shri. V.P. Tandon at a rent of Rs. 242/- per
month ”, wherein he admitted that the rate of rent was Rs.242/- per month.
Therefore, from these two documents relied by the Plaintiff themself , it is
evident that the defendant was occupying the suit property as a tenant, at
the rate of Rs. 242/- per month.
66. There was also a Rent Receipt dated 13.07.1981 Mark PW1/D1
which was also corroborated by Defendant in his testimony, which reflects
that the rent receipts for the month of April-May 1981, was in the sum of Rs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 23 of 27
400/-, thereby corroborating that the initial rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per
month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 242/- per month.
67. The Plaintiff had claimed that after having purchased the suit
property, he had approached the Defendant in December, 2007 and the rent
was enhanced to Rs. 7000/- per month. However, he himself had asserted in
his cross-examination dated 15.05.2019, that since the purchase of the
property in the year 2002, he has been receiving the rent @ Rs. 7000/- per
month and never @ Rs.242 per month. It was asserted by him that he
received the rent @ Rs. 7000/- per month after one or two months from the
date of purchase and the said rent was never changed and modified.
68. There is a self-contradiction in the statement of Plaintiff No. 1; while
he asserted that he was paid the rent after one or two months of purchase of
the property in the year 2002 @ Rs. 7000/- per month; he himself had
asserted that in December 2007, the parties had agreed to enhance the rate to
Rs. 7000/- per month. The Plaintiff was confronted with this contradiction in
his statement, wherein he sought to clarify that rent was Rs. 7000/- per
month only and there was no occasion to enhance the rent in the year 2007.
69. From the contradictory evidence of the Plaintiff coupled with the
documents i.e. Agreement to Sell and Possession Letter dated 31.12.2002 ,
Ex.PW1/DX1 and Ex.PW1/DX2 respectively, which have been admitted by
the Plaintiff No. 1, it is evident that at the time when the property was
purchased by him, the rent was Rs. 242/- per month. He has not been able to
give any cogent evidence of either the rent been enhanced to Rs. 7000/- per
month in the year 2002 or it been enhanced to Rs. 7000/- in December,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 24 of 27
2007. It is, therefore, well established that the rent was never Rs. 7000/-
per month for the suit property but was Rs. 242/- per month .
70. The learned ADJ also referred to the Income Tax Returns of the
Plaintiff No. 1 which were marked as CW-1 (Colly) in detail, to conclude
that the Income Tax Returns of Ved Prakash also did not establish that the
rent was being received by him @ Rs. 7000/- per month. The learned ADJ
on appreciation of evidence, therefore, correctly recorded the rate of
rent to be Rs. 242/- per month.
71. The learned counsel on behalf of Plaintiff had claimed that damages
of Rs. 2,00,000 granted to the Plaintiff, if divided by 36 months, the amount
comes to Rs. 5,555/- per month, which is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month.
It clearly reflects that the learned ADJ while not granting arrears of rent @
Rs. 7000, has himself calculated the damages by taking the rent as Rs.
5,555/- per month and thus, Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the
suit of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, having regard to the locality and the
property being commercial and also to the rent of the adjoining shops, the
learned Civil Judge had rightly held the rent to be Rs. 5,000/- per month.
72. However, this contention raised on behalf of Plaintiff is absolutely
fallacious. The overwhelming evidence, ocular and documentary evidence
establishes the rate of rent to be Rs. 242/- per month and has been rightly
held by the First Appellate Court. The damages have not been granted
towards the arrears of rent for the last three years, but for the harassment and
the continued occupation of the suit premises by Defendant. The damages
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 25 of 27
cannot be bifurcated in the manner suggested by Plaintiffs, to calculate the
rate of rent as Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 5,555/- per month.
73. Once the First Appellate Court had correctly assessed rate of rent to
be Rs. 242/- per month, which is below Rs. 3500/-, the Suit of the Plaintiff
for Recovery of Possession was barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act. It
may be a difficult case where the Defendant and now his legal heirs, are in
occupation of the tenanted premises since long at a nominal rate of Rs. 242/-
per month, but their eviction can be effected only in accordance with law.
74. The Plaintiff/landlord may find it a case of extreme hardship, but their
remedy is to pursue the eviction under the correct law and is not entitled to a
decree of Possession under the Transfer of Property Act.
75. The arrears of rent @ Rs. 242/- per month has been, therefore, rightly
granted to Plaintiff and such findings do not merit any interference.
76. The Defendants through LRs, however, has an objection to the grant
of damages in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Plaintiff by the First
Appellate Court. The learned ADJ , however, held that it is the discretion of
the Court while deciding a suit to award the costs, if the circumstances so
merit. Herein also, the First Appellate Court had considered the long period
of litigation tenancy and the harassment caused to the Plaintiffs, in granting
the damages of Rs. 2,00,000 which in fact, are in the nature of costs.
Therefore, there is no infirmity in the grant of the damages and there is no
merit in the Appeal filed by Defendant through LRs in RSA 9/2020.
Conclusion:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 26 of 27
77. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit in
both the Appeals i.e. RSA 9/2020 filed by V.P. Tandon through LRs and RSA
54/2020 filed by Ved Prakash and another . Both the Appeals are hereby,
dismissed .
78. Pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 27, 2026/dss
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:15:11
RSA 9/2020 & RSA 54/2020 Page 27 of 27