Arti Sharma Alias Arti & Anr. vs Kanta Kame

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Reserved on 22 May, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 05 June, 2026

+ RSA 209/2024, CM APPL. 71171/2024 & CM APPL. 71173/2024
ARTI SHARMA @ ARTI
D/o Sh. Het Ram
R/o 316-B, First Floor,
Pocket M & N, Janta Flats,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ayaz Ahmed and Mr. Sameer
Khan, Advocates with Appellant in
person.
versus
SMT. KANTA KAME
W/o Sh. Ashok Kame
R/o D-52, Pocket-J DDA Flats,
Sheikh Sarai,
New Delhi. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Krishnakumar R. S., Advocate
with Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Section 151
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the Judgment
dated 02.08.2024 whereby the learned District Judge, in First regular Appeal
has upheld the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2023, of the
learned Civil Judge, while dismissing the challenge to the Application under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, in setting aside the Judgement of the learned Civil
Judge.
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 1 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

2. The Respondent/Plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing CS No.
947/2019 seeking eviction of the Defendant/Appellant and recovery of
arrears of rent.
3. Briefly stated , the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff was that she was
the owner of property bearing No. 316-B, Pocket M & N, Janta Flats, Sarita
Vihar ( hereinafter referred to as suit property ), and that the Appellant along
with Defendant No.2 (her husband, who has not been impleaded in this
Appeal) had approached her for taking the premises on rent. Pursuant
thereto, a Rent Agreement dated 14.06.2016 was executed for the period
from 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2017, at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. The rent,
after June, 2018, was enhanced to Rs. 8,500/- per month, in consultation
with the husband of the Respondent/Plaintiff. The tenants continued to pay
the rent till 11.06.2019, whereafter they allegedly defaulted in payment of
rent. It was also averred that no fresh Rent Agreement was executed after
expiry of the initial tenancy Agreement.
4. It was further stated by the Plaintiff that the Defendants had been
irregular in payment of rent and, on several occasions, had tendered rent for
two months, at a time. The Plaintiff further asserted that the last payment of
Rs. 17,800/- was received on 18.07.2019 towards rent, for the period from
12.04.2019 to 11.06.2019, and that thereafter, no rent was paid by the
Defendants.
5. The Plaintiff also asserted that the electricity charges were liable to be
paid by the Defendants as per the consumption, for which a separate meter
was also installed in the Suit property. The Defendants had initially checked
the previous meter reading and agreed to pay the charges, as per the
Agreement.
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 2 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

6. The Plaintiff further submitted that the rent payable by the Defendants
was being remitted through NEFT, into the bank account of Shri Ashok
Kumar Kame, husband of the Plaintiff, who maintained proper records and
accounts, pertaining to the rent received from the Defendants.
7. On 10.07.2019, Shri Ashok Kumar Kame visited the Defendants, for
the purpose of inspecting the building. During the course of his visit, he kept
his bag on the Second Floor of the building and proceeded to the roof.
However, upon returning, he was shocked to discover that his bag had been
tampered with and several important documents, including the Rent
Agreement, were missing therefrom.
8. Shri Ashok Kumar Kame immediately confronted Defendant No.1
and Defendant No.2 regarding the missing documents; however, both denied
having any knowledge thereof. Thereafter, the Plaintiff approached the
concerned Police Station to lodge a complaint, but was advised to submit the
same through the online portal. Consequently, Shri Ashok Kumar Kame
lodged an online complaint, regarding the loss of the aforesaid documents.
9. The Plaintiff bona fide required the Suit premises for the residential
use and occupation of her son, whose marriage was scheduled to take place
within a period of two months. Despite repeated requests, the Defendants
failed and neglected to vacate the Suit premises.
10. Consequently, the Plaintiff was constrained to issue a Legal Notice
dated 06.08.2019 to the Defendants, thereby terminating the Rent
Agreement and calling upon them to hand over the vacant and peaceful
possession of the Suit premises. However, despite service of the said Legal
Notice, the Defendants neither complied with the demands made therein nor
vacated the Suit premises.
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 3 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

11. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the Suit No. 947/19, seeking
possession of the Suit property, recovery of arrears of rent amounting to
Rs.34,000/- calculated @ Rs.8,500/- per month for the period from
12.06.2019 to 11.10.2019, along with future rent/damages till the
Defendants vacate and hand over the possession of the Suit premises.
12. The summons of the Suit were issued to the Defendants, but they
were received back with the Report “ Defendants were out of station ”. The
service was effected upon Defendant No.1 through WhatsApp, but
Defendant No.2 had blocked the number of the Plaintiff. Since the service
had been effected upon the husband of Defendant No.1, she was deemed to
have been served. The summons were also affixed outside the premises of
the Defendants, vide Report dated 18.12.2019.
13. The Defendants, thereafter failed to appear and were proceeded ex-
parte.
14. The Plaintiff in support of her case, examined herself as PW1 and
tendered her evidence by way of Affidavit, Ex.PW1/1. She proved the
documents of ownership, water bills, electricity bills, Rent Agreement dated
14.06.2016, Statement of Account, online Complaint and the Legal Notice
as Ex. PW1/A to 1/G.
15. The learned ASCJ on appreciation of the evidence, placed reliance
upon the ownership documents Ex. PW1/A, the Rent Agreement dated
14.06.2016 Ex. PW1/C, and the Tenant Verification Report dated
11.06.2016 Ex. PW1/E, to conclude that the Defendants were inducted as
tenants in the suit property and that the last paid rent was Rs. 8,500/- per
month. The Defendants had failed to vacate the premises, despite service of
Legal Notice dated 06.08.2019 Ex.PW1/7. Consequently, the Suit of the
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 4 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

Plaintiff was decreed for Possession, Recovery of Rent @ Rs.8,500/- per
month for the period 12.06.2019 to 11.10.2019 and further Mesne Profits
were granted @ Rs.9,000/- per month along with interest @ 6% per annum
till the premises were vacated.
16. Aggrieved by the ex-parte Judgment and Decree, Defendant No. 1
filed an Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC , s eeking setting aside of
the ex-parte proceedings. However, the learned ASCJ held that the
summons had been duly served upon Defendant No. 1 and that she had
failed to appear despite such service, and dismissed the said Application,
vide Order dated 01.03.2023 .
17. Thereafter, the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, Arti, preferred an Appeal
before the learned District Judge assailing both the Order dated 01.03.2023
dismissing her Application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and the ex-
parte Judgment and Decree dated 01.10.2021. The learned District Judge,
however, found no merit in the Appeal to challenge to the Order dated
01.03.2023, dismissing the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
18. Learned. District Judge did not find any merit in the First Regular
Appeal challenging the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 01.10.2021
passed by the learned ASCJ, and the same was affirmed, vide Judgement
dated 02.08.2024 .
19. Aggrieved, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred to
challenge the Judgement dated 02.08.2024, of Ld. District Judge, upholding
the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 01.10.2021.
20. The grounds of challenge are that the Suit premises were located in
District South-East, while the Suit has been decided by the learned Judge of
South District. There was no territorial jurisdiction with the learned ASCJ
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 5 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

as well as with the learned District Judge, South to entertain the Suit and on
this ground itself, the Judgment is liable to be set aside.
21. It is further contended that the particulars of the Appellant/Defendant
No. 1, have been incorrectly described in the Suit proceedings. According to
the Appellant, her correct name is Arti Tiwari , whereas in the suit she has
been described as Ms. Arti Sharma @ Arti . It is asserted that she has never
been known by the name Arti Sharma and has, since her childhood, been
known and identified as Arti Tiwari . In support of this contention, the
Appellant has placed on record a copy of her Aadhaar Card, reflecting her
name as Arti Tiwari.
22. It was further contended that the Suit instituted by the Plaintiff, was a
collusive proceeding between her and Defendant No. 2, Alok Thakur @
Alok. The Defendant No. 2 had been erroneously described as her husband,
whereas she has no connection whatsoever, with him and he is not her
husband.
23. It was further submitted that Defendant No. 2, Alok Thakur @ Alok
was never a tenant in the suit property and had never resided at the suit
premises. According to the Appellant, she is a married woman and the name
of her husband is Manoj Pandey, although certain matrimonial disputes had
arisen between them. In support of her contentions, the Appellant placed
reliance upon a copy of her Ration Card, wherein the name of her husband,
is recorded as Het Ram Tiwari.
24. It is further contended that no valid service of summons, was ever
effected upon the Appellant. No summons were affixed either in her name,
namely Arti Tiwari, or by reference to her husband, Manoj Pandey.
Consequently, the alleged service by affixation, cannot be treated as due
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 6 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

service upon the Appellant. It is further submitted that no summons of the
Suit were ever served upon her through WhatsApp or by any other mode,
prescribed under law. Accordingly, the Appellant remained unaware of the
pendency of the Suit proceedings.
25. The Appellant submits that she first became aware of the ex-parte
Judgment and Decree dated 01.10.2021, only upon noticing the summons
issued in the Execution proceedings, affixed on the wall of the premises.
Thereafter, she promptly engaged counsel and took steps to challenge the
ex-parte decree. It is contended that her non-appearance before the learned
Trial Court, was neither deliberate nor wilful, but was solely on account of
the absence of due service of summons.
26. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned Order dated
01.03.2023, whereby the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with
Section 151 CPC has been dismissed, be set aside. Furthermore, the ex-
parte Judgment and Decree dated 01.10.2021 be also set aside and the
Appellant be granted an opportunity to contest the Suit on merits.
27. The Written Submissions were filed on behalf of the Respondent ,
wherein it was explained that it is well settled as has been held in the case of
Pathumma vs. Kuntalan Kutty (1981) 3 SCC 589 and also in K.P. Ranga
Rao vs. K.V. Venkatesham (2015) 13 SCC 514, that the objection in regard
to the territorial jurisdiction , has to be taken at the earliest opportunity and
cannot be raised at the stage of Revision or the Appellate stage. Under
Section 21(1) CPC, no objection can be taken as to the place of suing, unless
the three conditions are satisfied, namely ( i) the objection was taken in the
Court of first instance; (ii) it was taken at the earliest possible opportunity
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 7 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

and in cases where issues are settled at or before the settlement of issues;
and (iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.
28. In the present case, despite having due notice of the Suit proceedings,
the Appellant consciously failed to enter appearance and contest the matter,
by filing her defence. Subsequently, the Application preferred by her under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte Judgment and
Decree, also was dismissed. The learned Court, upon appreciation of the
material on record, did not accept the Appellant's contention that she had
never been served with the summons of the Suit.
29. It was found that the Process Server had personally visited the address
of the Appellant for effecting service, and upon not finding her available at
the premises, had duly affixed the summons on the door of the property, in
accordance with law. Furthermore, the record revealed that the Appellant
had appeared before the learned Executing Court through counsel on
20.09.2022 and on subsequent dates. In these circumstances, it stood
established that the Appellant had been duly served with the summons of the
Suit. Consequently, the learned Court rightly dismissed the Application
under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, finding no sufficient ground for setting aside
the ex-parte Judgment and Decree.
30. It was further submitted that the Appellant had not approached the
Court with clean hands . She has grossly misrepresented and concealed
important facts from the Court. By virtue of the Order of Eviction dated
01.10.2021, the physical possession of the Suit property was handed over to
the Respondent on 16.08.2022, after lengthy execution proceedings .
31. The husband of the Respondent took the formal possession and
secured the premises with a lock and key. After a few days when the
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 8 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

husband revisited the place, to his horror and shock, he found that the
Appellant in gross violation of the Orders of the Courts, had broken open the
locked premises, usurping the peaceful physical possession of the
Respondent and had gain entry by trespass.
32. Moreover, the Appellant has continued to remain in unauthorized and
illegal occupation of the Suit premises without payment of any rent or
occupation charges. In view of her unlawful possession, the Respondent's
husband approached the police authorities by calling the emergency helpline
112, pursuant to which an FIR was registered against the Appellant, for the
offence of criminal trespass. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the matter, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom,
are presently pending adjudication.
33. It was further submitted that the Appellant has consistently made false
statements and misrepresented facts, before various Courts. It was contended
that despite having unlawfully entered and continued to occupy the suit
premises, the Appellant remains in unauthorized possession thereof without
paying any rent or occupation charges. It was further asserted that, as of the
end of January 2025, the Appellant had accumulated rental arrears
amounting to approximately Rs. 6,00,000/-.
34. It was further submitted that the Appellant has recently acquired a
property bearing No. 318-B, Pocket M, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, comprising
of four floors, from which she is allegedly earning rental income of
approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month.
35. It was pointed out that in the documents pertaining to the said
property, the Appellant has described herself as the daughter of Het Ram
Tiwari . It was further contended that, while in certain documents she has
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 9 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

represented herself as the daughter of Het Ram Tiwari, in the Rent
Agreement executed with the Respondent in the year 2016 she had
represented herself, as the wife of Alok Kumar.
36. It was further stated that it is neither the responsibility of the
Respondent nor of any other person, to ascertain the true identity or status of
the Appellant, particularly when she had chosen to describe her relationship
and personal particulars, differently in different documents. According to the
Respondent, such inconsistent representations amount to deliberate
misrepresentation and are reflective of the Appellant's conduct throughout
the proceedings.
37. It was further submitted that the Appellant has repeatedly acted in
disregard of the law and is liable to be proceeded against, in accordance with
law. In view of the foregoing, it was submitted that the present Appeal is
devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused .
38. A preliminary objection has been taken by the Appellant that the Suit
property was located in Sarita Vihar, which fell in the territorial jurisdiction
of District South-East, while the Suit has been entertained by the learned
Judge in District South. Therefore, the Judgment is without jurisdiction and
is liable to be set aside.
39. It may be noted that this objection of territorial jurisdiction was taken
by the Appellant, only at the stage of first Appeal before the learned District
Judge. Learned counsel for the Respondent has rightly referred to Section
21(c) CPC, which provides that this objection would be accepted, only if it
is shown to have been taken in the first instance and has resulted in
prejudice to the parties.
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 10 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

40. It has been held in the case of Pathumma vs Kuntalan Kutty (supra)
and also in K.P. Ranga Rao vs K.V. Venkatesham (supra) that the objection
to the territorial jurisdiction has to be taken not at the Execution or at the
Appellate stage.
41. In the present case, even though the Suit was tried in the District
South, there is nothing to show that the Appellant had been prejudiced in
any manner. It has been held in the case of Pathumma vs Kuntalan Kutty
(supra) and also in K.P. Ranga Rao vs K.V. Venkatesham (supra) that the
objection to the territorial jurisdiction has to be taken not at the Execution or
at the Appellate stage.
42. In the present case, the District Judge has duly considered this
contention and noted that this objection to the District being South-East, was
never raised by the Appellant even in her Application under Order 9 Rule
13 CPC. Moreover, vide Administrative Order dated 19.02.2013, it had
been directed by this Court that the fresh cases or matters shall be presented
in the Courts having jurisdiction. If learned counsel was aware that an ex-
parte Judgment had been passed without jurisdiction, he should have filed an
Application/Appeal, in the correct jurisdiction. However, no such steps were
taken on behalf of the Appellant. Therefore, the contention of the Judgment
being bad on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction, has been rightly
rejected by the learned District Judge.
43. Another objection taken was that the Appellant was never served with
the summons of the Suit. However, this aspect had been duly considered in
the Application under OIX Rule 13 CPC, and it was held that the Appellant
was duly served with the Summons. The Appeal against this Order, had also
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 11 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

been dismissed by Ld. District Judge, which has attained finality and cannot
be a ground for consideration, in this Appeal.
44. It may however, be noted that despite due service through pasting, she
had failed to participate in the proceedings and was proceeded ex-parte.
Pertinently, the summons for Execution were served similarly by pasting,
which she admits to have received and had thereafter, appeared in the
Execution proceedings.
45. The first main objection on merits , which has been taken by the
Appellant is that Defendant No.2 Alok Thakur @ Alok was not her husband
and he had no concern with the tenanted premises. She claimed that the
name of her husband was Manoj Pandey and she had no relation with Alok
Thakur @ Alok.
46. However, the perusal of the Bank Passbook reflects that there were
multiple entries through NEFT towards payment of rent, into the Account
of the Plaintiff/Respondent from the Account of one Alok, which
establishes the connection of Alok Thakur with the tenancy. Even if the
contention of the Appellant is accepted that Alok Thakur was not her
husband, but as rightly contended by the Respondent, it was not her duty to
verify the relationship of Appellant with Alok Thakur or to have verified
their documents of marriage. It was the Appellant who approached along
with Alok Thakur and presented him as her husband, which was reasonably
accepted by the Respondent.
47. Whatever may be the relationship of the Appellant with Alok Thakur,
what was significant was that she alone had entered into the Rent Agreement
with the Respondent, vide Agreement dated 14.06.2016 Ex.PW1/C. Not
only this, there is also Tenant Verification Form Ex.PW1/E, wherein the
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 12 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

particulars of the tenant i.e. the Appellant Arti, wife of Alok Kumar had
been filled in, on the basis of the information given by the Appellant.
48. Another contention raised by the Appellant is that her correct name is
Arti Tiwari , whereas in the Suit, she has been wrongly described as Ms. Arti
Sharma @ Arti . However, whether Appellant was known as Arti Sharma or
as Arti Tiwari, such alleged mis- description does not take away the truth of
she actually being the person who entered into the Rent Agreement with the
Respondent and had occupied the premises as a tenant. Her status in the Suit
property as a tenant, is fully established.
49. The Rent initially @ Rs.7,000/-, thereafter Rs.8,000/- and finally @
Rs.8,500/-, stands fully corroborated from the Passbook of Shri Ashok
Kumar Kame Ex.PW1/D, to whom the Rent was being paid by the
Appellant, on behalf of the Respondent. The documents overwhelmingly,
establish the relationship of landlord-tenant and also that the rent was
more than Rs.3,500/- per month.
50. The most bizarre fact which needs to be mentioned, is that in
Execution proceedings, the Appellant had been evicted from the premises by
the Orders of the Court dated 01.10.2021 and the physical possession was
handed over to the Respondent on 16.08.2022 . However, the woes of the
Respondent did not come to an end, as the Appellant thereafter, entered into
the Suit premises. According to the Plaintiff by breaking open the lock of
the Respondent.
51. The Appellant during the course of arguments has not denied that
despite the possession having been taken by the Plaintiff through Bailiff, she
re-entered the premises. However, her explanation is that she found the
premises lying unlocked, and thus, re-entered into the premises.
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 13 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43

52. It clearly reflects the trespass made by the Appellant into the property
and her continued possession till date without paying a penny, is illegal. She
has no right to continue in the premises, especially after an Eviction Decree
which had been duly executed and she was evicted from the premises. Such
conduct of the Appellant who has re-entered in the premises without any
Orders of the Court or without any legal basis, speaks volume about her
illegal conduct.
53. From the overwhelming evidence, it may be concluded that the
Appellant had entered into the premises as a tenant with a rate of rent of
more than Rs.3,500/-. She has no right, title to continue in the Suit premises,
once the tenancy got terminated.
54. There is no infirmity in the Judgment of the learned ASCJ which
has been rightly upheld by the learned District Judge . Moreover, this is
Second Regular Appeal, wherein there are no substantial question of law,
have been stated. The challenge is purely on facts, which cannot be re-
appreciated in second Appeal.
55. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.
56. The Appeal along with the pending Applications stand disposed of,
accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE

JUNE 05, 2026
va
Signature Not Verified
RSA 209/2024 Page 14 of 14

Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:09.06.2026
11:41:43