Kamal Kant Sharma vs Raj Rani Uppal & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 26 May, 2026
st
Pronounced on: 31 August, 2026
# CNR No : DLHC010050402025
+ RFA 104/2025, CM APPL. 7134/2025
RAHUL CHAUDHARY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Sharma and Mr. Sandeep
Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
RAJ RANI UPPAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahland Mr. Sumit Ahuja,
Advocates.
# CNR No : DLHC010113802025
+ RFA 222/2025, CM APPL. 13353/2025, CM APPL. 13355/2025
KAMAL KANT SHARMA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Sharma and Mr. Sandeep
Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
RAJ RANI UPPAL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahland Mr. Sumit Ahuja,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 1 of 29
1. The present Regular First Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”) have been
preferred against the Judgments and Decrees dated 09.10.2024 and
15.10.2024, passed by the learned District Judge-01, Delhi.
2. The RFA-104/2025 has been preferred by the Appellant/Defendant,
Rahul Chaudhary against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2024
passed in CS No.328/2021, whereas RFA-222/2025 has been preferred by
the Appellant/Defendant No.1, Kamal Kant Sharma against the Judgment
and Decree dated 15.10.2024 passed in CS No.460/2021.
3. The learned District Judge, vide the respective impugned Judgments
and Decrees, decreed the Suits qua the relief of Possession against the
Appellants, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
4. Since both the Suits pertain to different portions of same Property
bearing No.36/7, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 and arise out of an
interconnected set of facts, including a common defence founded upon an
Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016, the two Appeals are being decided by
this common Judgment.
Civil Suit No. 328/2021: Filed by Raj Rani Uppal against Rahul
Chaudhary for Possession, Arrears of Rent, Damages/Mesne Profits and
Permanent and Mandatory Injunction:
5. The Plaintiff, Raj Rani Uppal filed the Civil Suit against the
Defendant, Rahul Chaudhary for Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent,
Damages/Mesne Profits and Permanent and Mandatory Injunction in
respect of the Upper Ground Floor of Property bearing No. 36/7, East
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 2 of 29
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit
Property") .
6. The facts in brief, as narrated in the Plaint, are that the Defendant,
Rahul Chaudhary was inducted as a tenant vide Rent Agreement dated
31.08.2016, at a monthly rent of Rs.32,000/-, excluding electricity, water
and other charges, for the period commencing from 10.09.2016 till
09.09.2019, in respect of the Upper Ground Floor of the suit property.
7. The Defendant for the first eleven months of the tenancy , from
September, 2016 to July, 2017, paid the monthly rent of Rs.32,000/- through
cheques. During this period, in the month of February, 2017, the Defendant
deposited Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.02.2017 and Rs.2,50,000/- on 13.02.2017 in
the bank account of the Plaintiff, which were towards the advance rent
payable upto June, 2019. The Defendant thereafter, requested that the
security deposit of Rs.64,000/- be adjusted towards the rent for the months
of July and August, 2019, as the tenancy was due to expire in September,
2019.
8. Upon the request of the Defendant, the tenancy was orally extended in
September, 2019, at an enhanced rent of Rs.37,000/- per month. On
06.09.2019, the Defendant transferred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- into the
account of the Plaintiff by way of bank transfer, towards rent for the period
from September to December, 2019.
9. Thereafter, a fresh Rent Agreement dated 06.12.2019 was executed
between the parties, whereby the rent was fixed at Rs.37,000/- per month
for next eleven months i.e. from 01.01.2020 to 30.11.2020 and was further
enhanced to Rs.40,700/- per month for the period from 01.12.2020 to
31.10.2021, excluding electricity, water and other charges. During this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 3 of 29
period, on 12.12.2019, the Defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to
Mr. Manoj Kumar Uppal, son of the Plaintiff, towards rent for the months of
January and February, 2020 and part rent of March, 2020.
10. However, the Defendant defaulted in making the payment of rent
regularly. Consequently, a sum of Rs.4,67,800/- became due towards
arrears of rent upto March, 2021, which remained unpaid despite repeated
requests and reminders.
11. The Plaintiff further stated that the relations between the parties were
cordial and like a family, therefore, it had been orally agreed that one room
in the suit property would remain dedicated for the use of the Plaintiff and
her family members, during their visits to India from USA. The Plaintiff had
also kept some of her original documents and articles in the almirah, in the
said room. On account of the said arrangement, the suit property had been
let out at a rent which was about 25% lower than the prevailing market rent.
12. The Plaintiff was shocked to find that on 23.01.2021, the Defendant
did not allow Mr. Manoj Kumar Uppal, son of the Plaintiff, to enter the
premises to inspect the documents and articles of the Plaintiff lying therein.
The Plaintiff thereafter, returned to India from USA on 20.02.2021, but was
unable to stay in the said room and had to make alternative arrangements for
her stay.
13. The Plaintiff thus, issued a Legal Notice dated 01.03.2021 ,
terminating the tenancy of the Defendant and demanding arrears of rent of
Rs.4,67,800/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. The Defendant was
also called upon to pay damages/ mesne profits @ Rs.55,000/- per month
along with interest @ 24% per annum.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 4 of 29
14. Hence, the Suit was filed seeking Possession, Arrears of Rent,
Damages/Mesne Profits and Permanent and Mandatory Injunction.
15. The Defendant, Rahul Chaudhary, in the Written Statement took the
preliminary objection that there existed no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and that the Plaintiff had approached the Court
with a concocted and false story. It was further submitted that Mr. Kamal
Kant Sharma was a necessary and proper party in the absence of whom, the
Suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16. The Defendant, Rahul Chaudhary admitted that he was inducted as a
tenant in the suit property vide Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016. The
vacant possession was handed over to the Defendant by the Plaintiff on
10.09.2016.
17. He further stated that the Plaintiff is a USA citizen and used to
frequently visit India. He denied that one room was kept locked for the stay
of the Plaintiff or that she used to reside in that one room whenever she
came to India. It was asserted that after 10.09.2016, whenever she visited
India, she resided at the residence of her relative, Ms. Dolly Sapra at East
Punjabi Bagh.
18. In the last week of October, 2016, i.e. barely after a month, the
Plaintiff conveyed her intention of selling the Upper Ground Floor as well
as Third Floor with roof rights of the Suit Property as she was in dire need
of money and thus, wanted to sell the properties.
19. She also informed that a litigation connected to the said Property, vide
CS (OS) 1817/2007 titled "Smt. Raj Mohini & Ors. vs. Smt. Raj Rani Uppal
& Ors." , was pending in this Court. She stated that there was every
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 5 of 29
likelihood of her succeeding in the litigation, as it had already been directed
to be listed in the list of 'Finals' .
20. The Defendant conveyed the wishes of the Plaintiff to Mr. Kamal
Kant Sharma and eventually, the Defendant and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma,
Defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.460/2021, jointly agreed to purchase the
aforesaid property from the Plaintiff. Subsequently on 02.11.2016, they gave
Rs.7,50,000/- in cash vide Receipt dated 02.11.2016 as token money to the
Plaintiff.
21. The Plaintiff, entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016,
which was notarized on 21.11.2016, with the Defendant and Mr. Kamal
Kant Sharma in respect of the Upper Ground Floor and Third Floor with
roof rights of the property in question. The total sale consideration as agreed
between the parties was Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The Plaintiff, on the date of
execution of Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016, had received a total sum
of Rs.15,00,000/- from the Defendant and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma.
22. The Defendant claimed that on execution of Agreement to Sell dated
16.11.2016, the Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016 got mutually cancelled
and the tenancy was terminated . It was also agreed by the Plaintiff that the
remaining 10 post-dated cheques, which were given towards monthly rent to
the Plaintiff by the Defendant, would be presented for encashment by her
and the total amount of those cheques i.e. Rs.3,20,000/- shall be adjusted
towards the sale consideration. The Plaintiff also handed over her self-
attested copies of PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and USA Passport. The security
amount of Rs.64,000/- was returned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, on
16.11.2016 itself.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 6 of 29
23. On the request of the Plaintiff, Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma paid a part
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.11.2016, through cheque bearing no. 145423
drawn on Indian Bank, Laxmi Nagar, which was encashed on 23.11.2016, in
terms of the Agreement to Sell.
24. The Plaintiff came to India in November, 2018 and met the Defendant
and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma and requested for further payment of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The Defendant and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma enquired about
the status of Civil Suit (OS) 1817/2007 and were informed that it was still
pending and that she was waiting for the final hearing by this Court. On the
request of the Plaintiff, the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash on
05.11.2018 against a Receipt executed by the Plaintiff.
25. Thereafter in January, 2019, the Plaintiff again made a request for
further part payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Plaintiff stated that she was ready
and willing to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the Third
Floor with roof rights of the Suit Property in terms of the Agreement to Sell
dated 16.11.2016, if a further payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was made. The said
amount was paid on 10.01.2019 and the vacant possession of the Third
Floor with roof rights was given to the Defendant and Mr. Kamal Kant
Sharma, vide Receipt-cum-Possession Letter dated 10.01.2019.
26. In February, 2019, on the request of the Plaintiff, the Defendant and
Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma made an additional payment on 04.02.2019. Mr.
Kamal Kant Sharma transferred Rs.1,00,000/- through online transfer to the
bank account of the Plaintiff, while the Defendant paid Rs.7,50,000/- in
cash. The Defendant also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through
online bank transfer, and the Plaintiff executed a Receipt dated 04.02.2019
acknowledging the receipt of Rs.9,50,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 7 of 29
27. However, the Defendant was unable to pay the said Rs.1,00,000/-,
through online bank transfer. After a few months, when the Plaintiff
reminded the Defendant and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma that the said amount
had not been transferred, Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma made the payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- by way of bank transfer into the account of the Plaintiff on
10.07.2019, in lieu of Receipt dated 04.02.2019.
28. On 06.09.2019, on the request of the Plaintiff, the Defendant made a
further payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of bank transfer. On 19.11.2019,
Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma made another part payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by
way of bank transfer. Further payments were also made on the request of the
Plaintiff. In all, a total sum of Rs.43,20,000/- was paid to the Plaintiff
against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.
29. The Defendant claimed that he and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma were
always ready and willing to perform their part of the Agreement to Sell
dated 16.11.2016. It was specifically denied that there was any relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties or that there were any arrears of
rent due from the Defendants. It was submitted that the Suit was liable to be
dismissed.
Civil Suit No. 460/2021: Filed by Raj Rani Uppal against Kamal Kant
Sharma and Ritesh Kumar for Possession , Arrears of Rent,
Damages/Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction:
30. Similar Suit for recovery was filed by the Plaintiff, Raj Rani Uppal
against Kamal Kant Sharma , Defendant No. 1 and Ritesh Kumar,
Defendant No. 2 for Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 8 of 29
Damages/ Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction in respect of the Third
Floor of the suit property bearing No. 36/7, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-
110026.
31. The Plaintiff averred that the Third Floor of the suit property was let
out to Defendants No. 1 and 2 for residential purpose on 01.01.2018 at a
monthly rent of Rs.45,000/-, excluding electricity, water and other charges,
w.e.f. 10.01.2019. However, it took some time for the Defendants to shift to
the tenanted premises and therefore, with mutual consent, the tenancy was
agreed to have commenced w.e.f. 10.02.2019.
32. It was also agreed between the parties that there would be an increase
in monthly rent by 10% after every one year, meaning thereby the rate of
rent was to be Rs.45,000/- per month upto 09.02.2020, thereafter
Rs.49,500/- per month from 10.02.2020 upto 09.02.2021, and further
Rs.54,450/- per month from 10.02.2021 upto 09.02.2022.
33. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1, Kamal Kant Sharma
made the following payments towards rent in respect of the Third Floor of
the suit property:
Amount (Rs) Dated Mode
(a) Rs.60,000/- January/February
2019
Cash
(b) Rs.1,00,000/- 04.02.2019 Bank Transfer
(c) Rs.1,00,000/- 09.07.2019 Bank Transfer
(d) Rs.1,00,000/- 19.11.2019 Bank Transfer
(e) Rs.1,00,000/- 19.11.2019 Bank Transfer
(f) Rs.50,000/- 14.07.2020 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(g) Rs.2,000/- 19.08.2020 Through Paytm
(h) Rs.20,000/- 28.08.2020 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 9 of 29
(i) Rs.60,000/- 18.09.2020 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(j) Rs.70,000/- 29.10.2020 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(k) Rs.50,000/- 21.11.2020 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(l) Rs.50,000/- 16.12.2020 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(m) Rs.50,000/- 12.01.2021 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(n) Rs.63,000/- 27.01.2021 Cash
(o) Rs.40,000/- 04.02.2021 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(p) Rs.25,000/- 08.02.2021 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(q) Rs.35,000/- 12.02.2021 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(r) Rs.55,000/- 25.02.2021 Amt. Deposited
in Bank A/c
(s) Rs.45,000/- 27.02.2021 Cash
34. It was asserted that the total payments made towards monthly rent by
Defendant No. 1 amounted to Rs.10,80,000/-, and as on March, 2021, there
was a balance of Rs.2,52,900/- which the Defendants were liable to pay,
which they neglected to pay. The Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated
24.03.2021 for termination of tenancy of the Third Floor and demanded
peaceful possession along with arrears of rent in the sum of Rs.2,52,900/-
upto March, 2021 and a sum of Rs.54,450/- as rent for the month of April,
2021, along with interest @ 24% per annum. The said Legal Notice was
served on 27.03.2021.
35. Since the Defendants failed to comply with the notice or make the
payment, the Plaintiff instituted the Suit seeking recovery of possession of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 10 of 29
the Third Floor of the Suit Property and Rs.3,07,350/- towards arrears of
rent upto April, 2021 with interest @ 24% per annum, mesne profits of
Rs.55,000/- for the month of May, 2021 and future damages and mesne
profits @ Rs.55,000/- per month from the Defendants.
36. Defendant No. 1, Kamal Kant Sharma in his Written Statement
denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the
Plaintiff. He asserted that Defendant No. 2, Ritesh Kumar used to be his
servant and had no concern with the suit property.
37. He further asserted that the Plaintiff had concocted a false story of
landlord-tenant relationship. He endorsed that Rahul Chaudhary @ Ram
Kumar was inducted as a tenant vide Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016, in
respect of the Upper Ground Floor of the suit property, but stated that the
said Rent Agreement was mutually cancelled upon the Plaintiff expressing
her intention to sell the property, pursuant to which an Agreement to Sell
dated 16.11.2016 was executed.
38. Defendant No. 1 , Kamal Kant Sharma set up the same defence as was
taken in Civil Suit No. 328/2021, asserting that the Plaintiff had entered into
the Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016 with himself and Rahul Chaudhary
for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in respect of the Upper
Ground Floor and Third Floor with roof rights of the Suit Property. He
stated that the Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016 stood mutually cancelled
and the tenancy stood terminated by virtue of the said Agreement to Sell.
39. He further stated that the possession of the Third Floor with roof
rights was handed over to himself and Rahul Chaudhary, on 10.01.2019 vide
Receipt-cum-Possession Letter, in furtherance of the Agreement to Sell, and
that total payments of Rs.43,20,000/- had been made to the Plaintiff towards
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 11 of 29
the sale consideration. The Third Floor was never let out to the Defendants
as alleged. It was submitted that there was no relationship of Landlord-
tenant, but the defendant was entitled to Specific performance of Agreement
to Sell Dated 16.11.2016.
40. Defendant No. 2, Ritesh Kumar in his Written Statement stated that
he was a domestic servant-cum-cook of Defendant No. 1 and Rahul
Chaudhary at the Upper Ground Floor of the Suit Property till February,
2021.
41. He stated that he had nothing to do with the Plaintiff or the Third
Floor of the Suit Property and that there was no relationship of landlord
and tenant between him and the Plaintiff at any point of time. He further
stated that the alleged Rent Agreement was forged and fabricated and did
not bear his signatures. He stated that the Plaintiff had taken his photograph
and copy of identity proof under the garb of "servant police verification"
and had misused the same for the purpose of fabricating the alleged Rent
Agreement. The Legal Notice dated 24.03.2021 was never served upon him.
He denied being in possession or there being any relationship of landlord-
tenant between him and the plaintiff.
Counter-Claim for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell dated
16.11.2016 by Rahul Chowdhary and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma:
42. The Defendants, Rahul Chowdhary and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma also
filed a Counter-Claim for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell
dated 16.11.2016. It was claimed that the intention of the Plaintiff had
turned mala fide and she was not willing to perform her part of the
Agreement to Sell. The Defendant further claimed that he and Mr. Kamal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 12 of 29
Kant Sharma were in lawful physical possession of the suit property and that
the Plaintiff had concocted the false story of landlord-tenant.
43. It was thus, submitted that the Suit of the Plaintiff, was liable to be
dismissed.
44. The Plaintiff in the Replication in the two Suits, reaffirmed the case
as made out in the Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written
Statement.
45. The Plaintiff denied the execution of any Agreement to Sell either
with the Defendant or Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma and claimed it to be a forged
and fabricated document. She asserted that she was only a 1/3rd co-owner of
the suit property, the remaining 2/3rd share being owned by her two sons,
and that she had no authority to sell the entire property.
46. She further asserted that whatever payments she had received from
the Defendant and Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma, were only towards the rentals in
respect of the Upper Ground Floor and Third Floor of the Suit Property.
47. An Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed on behalf of
the Plaintiff.
48. The learned District Judge , vide the impugned Judgment and Order
dated 09.10.2024, observed that the Defendant had filed on record a copy of
the Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016 which was an unregistered
document and held that as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act,
documents containing contracts to transfer immovable property for the
purposes of Section 53A of the TPA, 1882are required to be registered, and
if not registered, they shall have no effect for the purposes of Section 53A
TPA.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 13 of 29
49. As regards Defendant No. 2, Ritesh, the learned District Judge
observed that Ritesh Kumar had clearly stated in his Written Statement that
he was a domestic servant-cum-cook and had nothing to do with the Plaintiff
or the Suit Property, and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant
between him and the Plaintiff. The learned District Judge accordingly, held
that the possession of the Defendants on the basis of the unregistered
Agreement to Sell, could not be protected.
50. The relief of Possession was accordingly, granted in favour of the
Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The suit was decreed qua
Possession against Rahul Chaudhary vide Judgment and Decree dated
09.10.2024, while the suit against Kamal Kant Sharma and Ritesh Kumar
was decreed qua Possession vide Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2024.
51. Aggrieved by the said Judgments and Decrees dated09.10.2024 and
15.10.2024, the Defendants/Appellants, Rahul Chaudhary and Kamal
Kant Sharma have filed the present Regular First Appeals.
52. The grounds taken in the two Appeals are that the learned District
Judge committed a grave error in observing that the Agreement to Sell dated
16.11.2016 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is an
unregistered document and therefore, the possession of the Appellants
cannot be protected under Section 53A TPA. It is asserted that Section 53A
TPA protects the possession of persons who have acted on a contract of sale,
but in whose favour no Sale Deed has been executed or registered, as
observed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. M/s K.C.
Sharma & Co. , AIR OnLine 2020 SC 686.
53. It is further contended that registered deeds are not required for
safeguarding the possession under Section 53A TPA, when the transferee is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 14 of 29
already in possession and has done acts in furtherance of the Agreement to
Sell. The impugned Judgments are, therefore, bad in law.
54. The Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016 was duly executed between
the parties. In furtherance of the terms and conditions thereof, the Appellants
had paid a total sum of Rs.43,20,000/- by way of part payments towards the
sale consideration, which had been completely ignored by the learned
District Judge. It is asserted that a grave injustice has been committed in
observing that on the basis of the unregistered Agreement to Sell dated
16.11.2016, the possession of the Appellants qua the suit property, cannot be
protected.
55. The learned District Judge further erred in not appreciating that after
the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016, the earlier Rent
Agreement dated 31.08.2016 stood cancelled and the tenancy stood
terminated, as expressly stipulated in the Agreement to Sell itself. The
documentary evidence including the Agreement to Sell; the receipts of cash
payments and the online payments received in the bank account of the
Respondent, were not duly appreciated.
56. The Appellants have further challenged the exercise of jurisdiction
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. It is contended that there was no clear,
unequivocal and unconditional admission on the basis of which a decree for
Possession could have been passed. Rahul Chaudhary, though admitting his
initial induction as a tenant under the Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016,
specifically pleaded that the tenancy came to an end upon execution of the
Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016.
57. Kamal Kant Sharma, on the other hand, denied having ever been
inducted as a tenant and claimed possession of the Third Floor pursuant to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 15 of 29
the Agreement to Sell and the Receipt-cum-Possession Letter dated
10.01.2019.
58. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in S.M. Asif v. Virendra Kumar
Bajaj , AIR 2015 SC 3678 had observed that the words "may" and "make
such order" in Order XII Rule 6 CPC reflect that the power is discretionary
and cannot be claimed as a matter of right for judgment on admissions.
Where the Defendants have raised objections which goes to the root of the
case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC.
59. The Appellants have also filed a CS DJ No. 929/2024, for Specific
Performance, which is contested by the Plaintiff . When such issues arise
between the parties, they ought to be decided on merits and the mere
admission of the initial relationship of landlord and tenant by defendant
Rahul Choudhary, cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
60. In RFA 222/2025, it is additionally asserted that the Suit was bad for
non-joinder of necessary party, as the Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016
was executed between the Respondent, the Appellant and Rahul Chaudhary
@ Ram Kumar, who has not been made a party to CS No. 460/2021.
61. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned Judgments
and Decrees dated 09.10.2024 and 15.10.2024 be set aside.
62. The Appellants in their Written Submissions relied upon Karan
Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4645/2022, wherein it was
held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be invoked, by rejecting a
substantive defence of an Agreement to Sell.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 16 of 29
63. Reliance was also placed on S.M. Asif v. Virendra Kumar Bajaj , Civil
Appeal No. 6106-6108/2015, wherein it was observed that admissions must
be unconditional and unequivocal, for decreeing the Suit under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC.
64. Further reliance was placed on Vayyaeti Srinivasarao v. Gaineedi
Jagajyothi, 2026 INSC 59 and Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. , Civil
Appeal No. 5077/2011, wherein it was held that judgment on admissions
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, is a discretionary relief.
65. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, Raj
Rani Uppal, supported the impugned Judgments and also stated in his
Written Submissions wherein it was stated that the Suits had been instituted
for recovery of possession on the basis of the landlord-tenant relationship
and that the tenancies had been duly terminated before institution of the
Suits.
66. The tenancy of Rahul Chaudhary stood terminated vide Legal Notice
dated 01.03.2021, while the tenancy of Kamal Kant Sharma and Ritesh
Kumar stood terminated vide Legal Notice dated 24.03.2021, which was
duly served on 27.03.2021.
67. It was pointed out that the Appellants had claimed about a notarised
Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016 and claimed to have paid substantial
amounts thereunder, and that Kamal Kant Sharma along with Rahul
Chaudhary had been handed over the vacant physical possession of the
Third Floor with roof rights vide Receipt-cum-Possession Letter dated
10.01.2019. However, the Respondent denied the execution of the Agreement
to Sell with either with the Appellants and claimed it to be a forged and
fabricated document.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 17 of 29
68. Even otherwise, the sole defence of the Appellants by which they seek
to protect their possession is the unregistered Agreement to Sell dated
16.11.2016, which is not permissible under law. It was contended that the
defence of part performance for protecting possession under Section 53A
TPA is not available, as the document requires compulsory registration if
executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other
Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, in view of Section 17(1A) of the
Indian Registration Act. The learned District Judge had rightly held that the
Appellants are not entitled to the protection under Section 53A TPA.
69. It was further contended that it is settled law that a mere Agreement to
Sell of immovable property, does not create any right in the property, save
the right to enforce the Agreement. In the present case, a Suit for Specific
Performance being CS DJ No. 929/2024 is already pending adjudication, in
which Suit alone the rights and claims of the Appellants qua the suit
property, can be decided.
70. The Appellants, therefore, cannot be permitted to hold onto the
possession under the garb of unregistered Agreement to Sell in a Suit for
possession on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant, after due
termination of tenancy.
71. Reliance was placed on R. Hemalatha v. Kasthuri, Civil Appeal No.
2535/2023 decided on 10.03.2023, wherein it was held that as per the
proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document
affecting immovable property and required to be registered, may be received
as evidence of a contract in a Suit for Specific Performance or as evidence
of any collateral transaction, but it is subject to Section 17(1A) of the
Registration Act.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 18 of 29
72. Reliance was also placed on Dinesh Sharma v. Krishn Kainth in
RFA No. 293/2021 decided on 19.04.2022, wherein similar observations
were made.
Submissions heard and record perused.
73. The Plaintiff, Raj Rani Uppal had specifically averred that she had let
out the Upper Ground Floor to Rahul Chaudhary vide Rent Agreement
dated 31.08.2016, on a monthly rent of Rs.32,000/- excluding water and
electricity charges for a period commencing from 10.09.2016 till
09.09.2019, a fact which is not denied by Rahul Chaudhary. However, it is
the specific case of Rahul Chaudhary that soon thereafter, in October, 2016
the Plaintiff expressed a desire to sell the Suit Property.
74. In CS DJ No. 460/2021, according to the Plaintiff, the Third Floor
was let out to Kamal Kant Sharma and Ritesh Kumar vide Rent Agreement
dated 01.01.2018. The said Rent Agreement has been categorically denied
by Kamal Kant Sharma. The perusal of the said Rent Agreement reflects that
it was an Agreement intended to be executed for the Third Floor by the
Plaintiff with one Ritesh Kumar, who according to Kamal Kant Sharma,
was his servant and Ritesh never entered into the premises as a tenant.
75. Ritesh Kumar has also denied the alleged tenancy. In his Written
Statement, he asserted that he was merely working as a domestic servant-
cum-cook with Kamal Kant Sharma and Rahul Chaudhary and had never
entered the Third Floor as a tenant. He further denied his signatures on the
Rent Agreement dated 01.01.2018 and claimed that his photograph and
identity documents, obtained for the purpose of servant police verification,
had been misused.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 19 of 29
76. Furthermore, there is no rent Agreement with Kamal Kant Sharma
and there is a moot question of whether he came into the possession, vide
Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016.
77. In fact, the common defence set up by Rahul Chaudhary and Kamal
Kant Sharma is founded upon the Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016,
stated to have been executed by the Plaintiff, in their favour. Rahul
Chaudhary admits that he initially entered the Upper Ground Floor as a
tenant on 10.09.2016, but claims that upon execution of the Agreement to
Sell dated 16.11.2016, the tenancy stood terminated and his possession
thereafter, became that of a prospective buyer by virtue of Agreement to Sell
dated 16.11.2016.
78. Kamal Kant Sharma, on the other hand, denies having ever been a
tenant and claims that the possession of the Third Floor was delivered to him
and Rahul Chaudhary subsequently, vide Receipt-cum-Possession Letter
dated 10.01.2019, in furtherance of the Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016.
79. Thus, while the initial induction of Rahul Chaudhary as a tenant is
admitted, the continuation of that tenancy after 16.11.2016 is specifically
disputed. In the case of Kamal Kant Sharma, even the very inception of his
possession as a tenant, is denied.
80. The Respondent, Raj Rani Uppal, has relied upon a Rent Agreement
dated 01.01.2018, allegedly executed with Defendant No.2, Ritesh Kumar.
However, Ritesh Kumar, in his Written Statement in CS No.460/2021,
categorically denied having been inducted as a tenant and stated that he was
merely working as a domestic servant-cum-cook with Kamal Kant Sharma
and Rahul Chaudhary at the Upper Ground Floor till February, 2021. He
further asserted that the alleged Rent Agreement was forged and fabricated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 20 of 29
and did not bear his signatures, and that his photograph and identity proof,
obtained under the pretext of “servant police verification”, had been
misused for preparing the said document. Ritesh Kumar claimed no
independent right, title or interest in the Suit Property.
81. The controversy, therefore, is not merely whether an unregistered
Agreement to Sell can confer protection under Section 53A TPA. The
anterior question, in the context of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, is whether the
pleadings contain a clear, unequivocal and unconditional admission that the
Appellants continued to occupy their respective portions as tenants,
notwithstanding the specific defence founded upon the Agreement to Sell
dated 16.11.2016.
82. The most pertinent document is the Agreement to Sell dated
16.11.2016. The relevant part of Clause (b) reads as under :
“B. PAYMENT AND CONSIDERATION
That the VENDEES prior to execution of this agreement
has already paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lakhs & Fifty Thousand only) to the VENDOR in cash
and on the execution of the present agreement to sell the
VENDEES have paid another Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) by way of two
different cheques i.e. cheque bearing no.145421 drawn
on Indian Bank, Laxmi Nagar Branch of Rs.2,50,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs and fifty Thousand only) and cheque
bearing no.540753 drawn on India Bank, Laxmi Nagar
Branch of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as
earnest money/ bayana/ part of agreed sale consideration
to the VENDOR/ SELLER and the VENDOR after
receiving the earnest money of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lacs Only), has handed over physical possession
of property/ built-up Upper Ground Floor area
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 21 of 29
measuring 280 Sq. Yards (approximately) which is built-
up on the plot/ property bearing noi.36, Road No.7, East
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 to the VENDEES on
today i.e. 16.11.2016 which is already in possession of
Sh. Rahul Choudhary by virtue of rent agreement dated
31.08.2016. It is agreed that the VENDOR shall present
the remaining 10 post dated cheques of rent in her
account and shall get them encashed in her account and
the amount of these cheques i.e. Rs.3,20,000/- shall be
adjusted in remaining sale consideration. It is further
agreed that on the execution of the present agreement to
sell, the rent agreement dated 31.08.2016 shall stand
cancelled and the tenancy shall stand terminated. The
balance amount of sale consideration i.e.
Rs.1,31,80,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty One Lakhs
and Eighty Thousand only) shall be paid by the
VENDEES to the VENDOR as mentioned herein below.
Rs.1,31,80,000/- /- (Rupees One Crore Thirty One Lakhs
and Eighty Thousand only) i.e. remaining sale
consideration shall be paid by the VENDEES to the
VENDOR within 6 months from the date of finality of
favourable judgment / order in favour of VENDOR in
above mentioned Civil Suit (OS) No.1817/2007 titled as
“Smt. Raj Mohini & Ors. vs. Smt. Raj Rani Uppal &
Ors.” pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
and at the time of execution of a sale deed by the
VENDOR in favour of VENDEES in respect of
DEMISED PROPERTY. It is agreed that the VENDOR
shall hand over the physical possession of the property/
built-up third floor area measuring 280 Sq. Yards
(approximately) with roof rights and two servant rooms
and one toilet and one bath room on the ground floor
and rights of parking of four cars on ground floor
parking area of the said building, which is built-up on
the plot/ property bearing no.36, Road No.7, East
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 110026 to the VENDEES/
PURCHASERS before the execution of sale deed in
favour of the VENDEES.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 22 of 29
However, it is agreed that if the Vendor will be in need of
money not exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
Only), then she/ VENDOR can ask for the same from the
VENDEES and VENDEES may pay the same to the
VENDOR towards a part payment in lieu of the present
agreement.”
83. From a bare perusal of the Agreement to Sell, it emerges that the Rent
Agreement dated 31.08.2016 stood terminated thereby reflecting that the
possession of the Appellant turned into that of prospective buyer and no
longer was relatable to the earlier Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016 of
Rahul Chaudhary. Pertinently, Civil Suit No. 929/2024 for Specific
Performance of Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016 has been separately
filed by Rahul Chaudhary and Kamal Kant Sharma, which is already
pending adjudication.
84. The Supreme Court in the case of R. Kanthimathi and Anr. vs.
Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.) (2000) 9 SCC 339 considered a similar question of
inter-se rights and jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant,
after an Agreement to Sell has been executed and substantial amount of
consideration has been paid by the Tenant. In the Agreement to Sell under
consideration, the clause stated "...and shall complete the transaction of sale
and conveyance as the property demised as already been surrendered to
your possession". It was held that in the Agreement to Sell executed
between the parties, there was an express stipulation that the demised
property had already been surrendered to the possession of the tenant which
was consciously incorporated, to indicate the willingness of the landlord to
effect change in the jural relationship. The intention of the parties was
clearly discernible from the terms of Agreement to Sell itself.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 23 of 29
85. Likewise, in the case of Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs.
Nagappa Shankarappa Malage and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 660, it was observed
that the surrender of tenancy under Section 111(e) and (f) of the Transfer of
Property Act involves yielding of the lessee's interest to the lessor, by
mutual agreement. In case of implied surrender, the intention of the parties
has to be gathered from the circumstances and the conduct which
demonstrates that the earlier relationship no longer exists.
86. Surrender may thus be express , by agreement of the parties, or may be
implied from conduct , wholly inconsistent with the continuance of the
existing tenancy. Whether such surrender has taken place, necessarily
depends upon the terms of the transaction and the attendant facts and
circumstances.
87. More recently, the Apex Court in the case of Vayyaeti Srinivasarao
vs. Gaineedi Jagajyothi 2026 SCC OnLine SC 84, while dealing with the
similar question, comprehensively examined the concept of express and
implied surrender and the consequences flowing therefrom, under Section
111 TPA. It was reiterated that an implied surrender may be inferred where
the conduct of the parties and the creation of a new relationship, are
inconsistent with the continuance of the pre-existing tenancy.
88. It was further observed that when an Agreement to Sell entered
between the parties clearly states that from the date mentioned in the
Agreement, the tenant in possession of the suit property, shall not be liable
to pay rent and shall alone be in charge of any damage caused to the
property in question, it would imply a surrender of rights as a tenant, for
which reference was made to B. Paramashivaiah vs. M.K. Shankar Prasad
AIR 2009 Kar. 88. The determinative consideration is whether the terms of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 24 of 29
the subsequent arrangement and the unequivocal conduct of the parties are
inconsistent with the continuation of the earlier tenancy.
89. This aspect has again been considered in the recent case of Nazim
Shaikh Hasan vs. Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh and Ors . 2026 INSC 853, wherein
after referring to the aforesaid judgment, the ratio has been distilled into the
following propositions:
“ (i) the mere execution of an agreement to sell
between a landlord and tenant does not ipso facto bring
about a determination of the subsisting tenancy;
(ii) it is only when the terms of the agreement or the
unequivocal conduct of the parties, inconsistent with the
continuance of the existing tenancy, disclose either an
express or implied surrender within the meaning of
Section 111(e) or (f) of the TP Act, that the lease can be
said to have been determined;
(iii) the continuous possession of a tenant even after
the execution of an agreement to sell does not amount to
part performance under Section 53A of the TP Act unless
such possession is shown to be directly relatable to and
flowing from the agreement to sell; and
(iv) any agreement to sell, not being a registered
deed of conveyance, does not by itself confer any title or
interest in the property.”
90. In the present case, the Agreement to Sell relied upon by Rahul
Chaudhary and Kamal Kant Sharma, contains an express stipulation that the
Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016 would stand cancelled and the tenancy
would stand terminated. Rahul Chaudhary has specifically pleaded that his
possession thereafter, continued in the capacity of a prospective purchaser.
91. Kamal Kant Sharma has, in turn, denied having ever executed any
Rent Agreement with the Plaintiff and claims that possession of the Third
Floor was delivered pursuant to the Receipt-cum-Possession Letter dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 25 of 29
10.01.2019 in furtherance of the Agreement to Sell. These pleas are,
undoubtedly, disputed by the Plaintiff; however, their correctness cannot be
determined while considering an Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
by treating the defence itself as non-existent.
92. A comprehensive reading of the pleadings, it is evident that there is
no clear unequivocal, unambiguous admission made by the Defendants in
their Written Statements; rather there is a specific defence of Agreement to
Sell and their possession being under the said Agreement to Sell has been
specifically pleaded. Not only this, a separate Suit for Specific Performance
is also pending.
93. In S.M. Asif v. Virendra Kumar Bajaj (2015) 9 SCC 287, the Apex
Court considered a factual matrix, similar to the present case. The tenant
therein, had admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of the lease
agreement, but had resisted the claim for eviction by setting up a defence of
an Agreement to Sell and claimed to have paid Rs.82,50,000/- towards the
sale consideration, which was stoutly denied by the landlord. A Suit for
Specific Performance was also pending.
94. The Apex Court held that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Where the
defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would
not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court
in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim
admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim. It was held that the
mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant, cannot be said to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 26 of 29
an unequivocal admission so as to decree the Suit under Order XII Rule 6
CPC.
95. Similarly, in Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No.
4545/2022 decided on 06.07.2022, the Apex Court considered an identical
situation where the tenant had admitted the execution of the lease
agreement, but had set up a defence of three successive Agreements to Sell,
and a Suit for Specific Performance was pending. The Trial Court had
passed a decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was
upheld by this Court.
96. The Supreme Court set aside the decree and held that the power to
pass judgment on admissions is discretionary and should only be exercised
when specific, clear and categorical admissions of facts and documents are
on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Where the tenant has stoutly denied that the landlord continued to be the
landlord after entering into an Agreement to Sell and a Suit for Specific
Performance is pending, the defence needs to be decided by a full-fledged
trial.
97. In the light of the above discussion, the learned District Judge fell in
error in observing that there was an admission of the Appellants being
tenants in the suit property or that the subsequent Agreement to Sell did not
change their status as that of a tenant.
98. The averments in the Written Statements, when read as a whole, are
qualified by a substantive defence of Agreement to Sell, the payment of
Rs.43,20,000/- towards sale consideration and the express stipulation in the
Agreement to Sell that the Rent Agreement dated 31.08.2016 stood
cancelled and the tenancy stood terminated. Such admissions cannot be said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 27 of 29
to be clear, unequivocal and unconditional, so as to attract the discretionary
jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, for a decree of possession.
99. Furthermore, the learned District Judge essentially proceeded on the
premise that since the Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016 was unregistered
and could not afford protection under Section 53A TPA in view of Section
17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, a decree for Possession thus,
necessarily followed, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
100. The two issues, however, are distinct. The finding that the
unregistered Agreement to Sell dated 16.11.2016 cannot afford protection of
possession under Section 53A TPA in view of Section 17(1A) of the
Registration Act, does not lead to the conclusion that a decree for possession
must follow under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The proviso to Section 49 of the
Registration Act expressly provides that an unregistered document may be
received as evidence of a contract in a Suit for Specific Performance.
101. The effect, genuineness and enforceability of the Agreement to Sell
and the rival characterisation of the possession are matters requiring
adjudication on evidence, and the Suit for Specific Performance is pending;
till the rights of the parties are determined, they cannot be dispossessed from
the suit property, in exercise of jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
102. Consequently, the impugned Judgments and Decrees dated
09.10.2024 and 15.10.2024 are set aside and both the matters are remanded
back to the learned District Judge, to be adjudicated on merits.
103. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge,
West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi on 17.09.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 28 of 29
104. The pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2026
RS/VA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:15:32
RFA 104/2025 &RFA 222/2025 Page 29 of 29