V.B. Singh And Anr vs M/S Jaina Properties Pvt Ltd And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Reserved on: 03 September, 2026
th
Pronounced on:30 October, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 06 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010480972023
+ RFA 947/2023, CM APPL. 61810/2023, CM APPL. 36757/2024,
CM APPL. 24433/2026
1. MR. V.B. SINGH
R/oHouse No. C-145,
Saraswati Kunj Apartment,
Patparganj, Plot No. 25,
I.P. Extension, Delhi-1 10092
2. MR. PRABHAKAR SINGH
S/o Sh. V.B. Singh
R/o House No.C-145,
Saraswa Saraswati Kunj Apartment,
Patparganj, Plot No. 25,
I.P. Extension, Delhi-1 10092
. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Saivi
Kumari, Mr. Advocates
versus
1. M/S JAINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,
Through Its Director Sh. Rakesh Jaina,
Regd. Office At AdinathShree House,
M-32, Connaught Circus,
(Opposite Super Bazar)
New Delhi-110001.
2. MR. SURINER MOHAN BHALLA
S/o Sh. B.P. Bhalla
R/o B-113, Surya Nagar,
RFA 947/2023 Page 1of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
District Ghaziabad,
PIN CODE-201011, U.P.
3. MR. RAM SWAROOP
S/o Sh. Amar Ditta
R/o C-55/587, Ganesh Nagar, N-2,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), has been filed bythe Appellants, V.B. Singh
and Prabhakar Singh, assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2023,
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the suit for
possession filed by, the Plaintiff/Respondent, M/s Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd.
was decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the Appellants were directed
to hand over possession of Spaces G-10 and G-11, Ground Floor, Jagdamba
Tower, within one month.
2. The Plaintiff/ respondent filed a Suit bearing CS No.
188/2023 seekingRecovery of Possession; Permanent Injunctions; and
Damages/Mesne Profits at ₹500 per day, until delivery of possession.
3. The facts in brief , as stated in the Plaint, are that the
Respondent/ Plaintiff, M/s Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd ., is a Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the construction
business. It acquired perpetual leasehold rights in Plot No. 13, Preet Vihar
RFA 947/2023 Page 2of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
Commercial Complex, Delhi, from the Delhi Development Authority
(“DDA”), under a perpetual Lease Deed dated 05.08.1988 . It thereafter,
constructed a commercial building known as “ Jagdamba Tower” on the plot
and allotted commercial spaces in the building, to various allottees on a
licence basis through separate Agreements.
4. The Plaintiff, under the perpetual Lease Deed dated 05.08.1988, was
required to pay ground rent and enhanced ground rent every six months in
advance, without awaiting any demand. Any default attracted interest and
entitled DDA to cancel the lease and resume possession of the entire
property. The Plaintiff asserted that it regularly paid these charges to DDA
annually in advance, to prevent re-entry into the building.
5. Defendant No. 1, Surinder Mohan Bhalla , entered into a Licence
Agreement dated 10.03.1989 with the Plaintiff, in respect of Space No. G-
10 , admeasuring approximately 90 sq. ft. , on the Ground Floor of Jagdamba
Tower, Plot No. 13, Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, Delhi. Similarly,
Defendant No. 2, Ram Swaroop , entered into a Licence Agreement dated
04.02.1992 with the Plaintiff in respect of Space No. G-11 , admeasuring
approximately 47 sq. ft. , in the same building. The terms and conditions of
the two Agreements, were identical. ( These spaces are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the “suit property.”)
6. The Clause 16(a) of the Licence Agreements, required the licensees
to pay their proportionate share of ground rent and enhanced ground rent in
respect of their allotted spaces to the Plaintiff, which charges it was liable to
remit to DDA, in advance.
7. The Plaintiff, in terms of Clauses 16(a) and 38 of the Licence
Agreements , raised a demand of ₹10,53,086/- against Defendant No. 1
RFA 947/2023 Page 3of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
towards ground rent, enhanced ground rent and licence fee for G-10,
through its last bill dated 27.01.2023 , covering the period up to 31.03.2023 .
The amount was payable by 10.02.2023 , through a bank demand draft in
favour of DDA and/or the Plaintiff. However, Defendant No. 1 failed to pay
within the stipulated period.
8. Similarly, a demand of ₹3,90,296/- was raised against Defendant No.
2 for G-11, through the last bill dated 27.01.2023 , towards the
corresponding charges up to 31.03.2023 . Defendant No. 2 also failed to
make the payment by 10.02.2023 .
9. The Plaintiff further stated that a Show-Cause Notice dated
04.02.2023 was issued, calling upon the Defendants to pay the ground rent,
enhanced ground rent and licence fee calculated at ₹5/- per sq. ft. per
month , amounting to ₹3,43,000/- in respect of the two spaces from the dates
of the respective Licence Agreements, together with interest and penalty,
within fifteen days of receipt. However, despite service of the Notice and
bills, the Defendants neither complied with nor replied to the Notice.
10. In the meantime, an officer of the Plaintiff visited the suit property
and found Defendant No. 3, V.B. Singh; Defendant No. 4, Sudhakar
Singh; and Defendant No. 5, Prabhakar Singh in occupation of the two
spaces. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 might have
transferred the spaces to them as sub-licensees or tenants without authority,
and asserted that Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were unauthorized occupants having
no right, title or interest in the suit property.
11. The Plaintiff stated that, upon the failure of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to
comply with the Show-Cause Notice, it issued a Cancellation/Termination
Notice dated 02.03.2023 , terminating the licences with immediate effect
RFA 947/2023 Page 4of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
and forfeiting the Defendants’ rights and interests in the suit property. It
relied upon Clauses 16(a) and 29 of the Licence Agreements, asserting that
non-payment entitled it to cancel the Agreements and resume possession.
12. AReply dated 17.02.2023 from Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 to the Show-
Cause Notice dated 04.02.2023.The Plaintiff described the grounds raised in
the reply, as false and frivolous It further claimed that the Reply disclosed
that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had transferred or assigned the licence rights in
G-10 and G-11 to Defendant Nos. 3 to 5, without the prior permission of the
Plaintiff or the DDA, in breach of Clause 27 of the Licence Agreements.
13. The Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 had merged
G-10 and G-11,by demolishing the common wall and pillars and had
substantially altered the original structure without the requisite sanction or
permission of the concerned authorities or the Plaintiff. It was asserted that
these alterations endangered the building and the safety of its occupants and
violated Clauses 11 and 21 of the Licence Agreements.
14. The Plaintiff alleged that the unauthorised transfers, non-payment of
the amounts due and damage to the building constituted breaches of the
Licence Agreements. After the Agreements were terminated on 02.03.2023,
the Defendants had no right to remain in the suit property.
15. The Plaintiff claimed Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to pay
₹500 per day, until the suit property was vacated and peaceful physical
possession was handed over.
16. The Plaintiff, thereafter, instituted Civil Suit No. 188/2023, seeking
recovery of possession of G-10 and G-11; Mandatory and Permanent
Injunctions; and damages/mesne profits at ₹500 per day, until delivery of
possession.
RFA 947/2023 Page 5of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
17. Defendant No. 2, Ram Swaroop, in his Written Statement , pleaded
that the Suit disclosed no cause of action against him, was undervalued and
was bad for misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary parties. He stated that he
had transferred G-11 to Satya Prakash on 15.10.1999 by executing a GPA,
Agreement to Sell and other documents. He asserted that he had paid licence
fees to the Plaintiff until that date, was no longer in possession and had no
knowledge of any subsequent transfer or of the identity of the person then
occupying the space.
18. In its Replication to Ram Swaroop’s Written Statement , the
Plaintiff maintained that he had been granted only licence rights under the
Agreement dated 04.02.1992 and denied the validity of his alleged transfer
to Satya Prakash. It relied upon Clause 27, asserting that a transfer required
prior permission of DDA or the Plaintiff and payment of the due amounts.
The Plaintiff also pleaded that a refund cheque for ₹74,636/- , representing
the security deposit, had been sent to and accepted by Ram Swaroop,
leaving him with no subsisting rights in the suit property.
19. The Defendant No.3 and 5, in their joint Written Statement , raised
preliminaryobjections as to the maintainability of the Suit, the Plaintiff’s
locus standi, valuation and court fee, the verification of the Plaint, non-
joinder of DDA and the adequacy of the site plan. They also pleaded that the
Plaint disclosed no cause of action against them and sought rejection of the
Suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
20. On merits, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 claimed that they had acquired
rights in G-10 and G-11 through the original allottees. Their pleaded chains
and the documents relied upon are set out below:
Space Defendant’s claim
RFA 947/2023 Page 6of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
G-10 V.B. Singh (Defendant No. 3) claimed through Surinder Mohan Bhalla
(Defendant No. 1), relying on an Agreement to Sell and Will dated
13.11.2002 . A registered GPA of the same date was executed in favour of
Sudhakar Singh (Defendant No. 4) , who, they stated, died on 02.09.2017 .
G-11 Prabhakar Singh (Defendant No. 5) claimed through Satya Prakash
Khera, who had allegedly acquired the space from Ram Swaroop
(Defendant No. 2) on 15.10.1999 . Prabhakar Singh relied on a registered
Agreement to Sell, GPA and Will dated 22.11.2004 .
21. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 stated that they had informed the Plaintiff of
the transfers and requested that their names be entered in its records, but the
Plaintiff had failed to do so. They asserted that they were willing to pay
ground rent and other lawful charges. They also alleged that the Plaintiff had
violated DDA’s rules by selling or letting out common areas, open spaces
and terrace spaces, constructing additional units, and charging ground rent at
an excessive rate. They denied being unauthorized occupants and also
denied making unauthorized structural alterations.
22. In its Replicationto the joint Written Statement of Defendant Nos.
3 and 5, the Plaintiff denied that they had acquired rights in the suit property
in the manner as stated. It maintained that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had been
granted only licence rights and could not transfer them without the
permission required under the Licence Agreements. The Plaintiff denied the
objections to maintainability, valuation, court fee, verification, site plan and
non-joinder of DDA, and reaffirmed its allegations of non-payment,
unauthorised occupation and structural alterations.
RFA 947/2023 Page 7of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
23. The learned Trial Court videOrder dated17.08.2023 , listed the
matter for consideration of whether a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC,
should be passed against Defendant Nos. 3 and 5.
24. On 26.08.2023 , the learned Trial Court heard counsel for the Plaintiff
and Defendant No. 2, but none appeared on behalf of Defendant Nos. 3 and
5. The Court thereafter, proceeded to decide the matter.
25. The learned Trial Court noted that Defendant No. 2 claimed to have
transferred G-11 to Satya Prakash, while Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 claimed to
have acquired G-10 and G-11 from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It observed that
the contesting Defendants had not denied that the Plaintiff was the licensor
of the spaces and had not produced documents establishing a valid title to
them.
26. The learned Trial Court held that a licensee could not sell the licensed
space and that the documents relied upon by the Defendants did not give
them a right to remain in possession. It also held that the disputes raised
between the Plaintiff and DDA, did not assist Defendant Nos. 3 and 5.
27. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had terminated the Licence
Agreements of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, by Notice dated 02.03.2023 . It
accordingly, passed a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 to hand over the suit premises to the Plaintiff,
within one month.
28. The Plaintiff’s claim for damages and mesne profits, was left for
evidence.
29. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2023 , V.B. Singh,
Defendant No. 3 and Prabhakar Singh, Defendant No. 5, have preferred
the present RFA No.947/2023.
RFA 947/2023 Page 8of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
30. The grounds of challenge are that the learned Trial Court passed a
decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC despite there being no clear,
unequivocal or unconditional admission in the Appellants’ pleadings. It is
contend that the Trial Court failed to consider the Written Statement as a
whole; wrongly treated the Appellants’ case as an admission, and thereby,
denied them an opportunity to establish their defence at trial.
31. It is further submitted that the Court could not have considered such a
decree on its own motion, in the absence of an Application by the Plaintiff,
and that the judgment was passed hastily and without properly examining
the Plaintiff’s locus to seek possession.
32. The Appellants also contend that the Plaintiff was only the builder
and developer, while DDA was the lessor of the land, and that the Plaintiff
therefore, had no authority to terminate their occupation or recover
possession. They challenge Clause 27(b) of the original Agreements as
inconsistent with the Perpetual Lease and assert that those Agreements
operated as transfer deeds, not Licence Agreements.
33. The Appellants further relied on the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act,
1986, DDA’s communication dated 13.12.2019 , the decision in O.S. Vajpai
v. Administrator, Lt. Governor , and their Applications for conversion and
execution of Apartment Sale Deeds. It is submitted that the learned Trial
Court failed to consider the effect of these matters, before passing the
decree.
34. The Appellants further contend that their application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC was not decided and that DDA was a necessary party to the
suit. They submit that the claims concerning the suit property, which they
claim through separate chains of transfer, were wrongly joined. They also
RFA 947/2023 Page 9of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
allege that the Plaintiff concealed material facts concerning the transfers, the
parties’ correspondence and the Appellants’ Applications to DDA.
35. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgement be set aside.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
36. The preliminary challenge is to the decree for possession passed
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, is that the learned Trial Court could not have
exercised its jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, without an
Application by the Plaintiff and without notice of its proposed action.
37. In this context, it is imperative to reproduce Order XII Rule 6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), which governs the power of the
Court to pronounce judgment on admissions:
“6. Judgment on admissions.—(1) Where admissions of
fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise,
whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the
suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion
and without waiting for the determination of any other question
between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as
it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) ….”
38. From a plain reading of the provision, it is very clear thatthe
languageis explicit: the Court may act “either on the application of any
party or of its own motion” . These are the independent alternatives. The
Rule, therefore, does not make a formal Application by a party, a pre-
condition to the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6
CPC.
RFA 947/2023 Page 10of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
39. Furthermore, this construction is affirmed in Karam Kapahi v. Lal
Chand Public Charitable Trust , (2010) 4 SCC 753. The Supreme Court
explained that the amendment to Order XII Rule 6 CPC was intended to
widen the Rule’s scope by empowering the Court to act on its own motion
in furtherance of the ends of justice. The absence of an Application by the
Plaintiff, presents no procedural bar to the Court; the only relevant
consideration being whether the admissions on record warrant a
judgment under the Rule . The Rule thus, does not confine consideration to
cases in which a party has formally applied for judgment on admissions.
40. The objection that the matter could not be considered under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC in the absence of an Application by the Plaintiff, is
unsustainable. The objection is accordingly, without merit and is rejected.
41. The second objection of the Appellants was that they were not put
on prior Notice of the intended Order under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
However, in the Order dated 17.08.2023 , the Ld. Trial Court recorded the
appearance of learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 and directed:
“Put up for consideration of aspect as to why decree should not
be passed against defendant no.3 and 5 U/o 12 rule 6 CPC on
26.08.2023.”
42. The Appellants were thus, informed through the counsel, of the
consideration of Decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the date was fixed
accordingly, for that purpose. Neither the Appellantsnor their counsel,
appeared on 26.08.2023. Having been afforded an opportunity to address the
matter, the Appellants cannot claim denial of hearing. The objection
founded on the alleged want of notice is, in view of the foregoing, wholly
misconceived and unsustainable.
RFA 947/2023 Page 11of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
43. On merits, the Appellants’ case was that the Plaintiff was merely the
builder and developer, while the DDA was the owner and lessor of the
land.The Plaintiff therefore, had no authority to terminate their occupation
or seek possession of the suit premises.
44. The Plaintiff had explained, in his Plaint, that it acquired perpetual
leasehold rights in Plot No. 13, Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, Delhi,
from the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), the plot in question, under
a perpetual Lease Deed dated 05.08.1988.The Plaintiff thereafter,
constructed a commercial building known as “ Jagdamba Tower ” on the plot
and allotted commercial spaces in the building, to various allottees on a
licence basis, through separate Agreements. Thereafter, the Plaintiff entered
into the Agreement dated 10.03.1989 with Defendant No. 1, Surinder
Mohan Bhalla, in respect of Space No. G-10, Ground Floor, Jagdamba
Tower, Plot No. 13, Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, Delhi , measuring
approximately 90 sq. ft. , and the Agreement dated 04.02.1992 with
Defendant No. 2, Ram Swaroop, in respect of Space No. G-11, Ground
Floor, in the same building , measuring approximately 47 sq. ft.
45. These facts are admitted by the Appellants in their Written Statement
and it is acknowledged that the Perpetual Lease was executed by DDA in
favour of the Plaintiff. V.B. Singh, Defendant No.3 claims rights in G-10
through Surinder Mohan Bhalla, Defendant No.1 while Prabhakar
Singh, Defendant No. 5 claims rights in G-11 through Satya Prakash Khera,
who, had in turn, acquired the rights of Ram Swaroop, Defendant No. 2. The
Appellants thus, trace their occupation to the original allotments made by
the Plaintiff.
RFA 947/2023 Page 12of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
46. In paragraph 6 of the Preliminary Submissions in their Written
Statement, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 state:
“That the Plaintiff is charging the illegal money in the name of the
Ground Rent charges from the occupier of the shops and unit
holders, whereas as per the norms of the Delhi Development
Authority the Plaintiff is only entitled to charge 2.5% of the total
consideration amount of the Perpetual Lease deed dated
05.08.1988 executed by the D.D.A. in favour of the Plaintiff. ”
47. In their response to paragraph 2 of the Plaint, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5
stated:
“That the contents of the Para No. 2 of the Plaint are not
disputed being the matter of record, however the Plaintiff had to
put strict proof regarding the same.”
48. The Defendants stated in Paragraph 11 of Written Statement:
“ That further immediately after purchasing the aforesaid spaces
by the Defendant No. 3 and 5, the Defendant No. 3 and 5 had
duly intimated the Plaintiff regarding the abovesaid purchases
and further requested the Plaintiff to record their names in
their record to avoid further inconvenience.”
49. TheAppellants, therefore, do not dispute the existence of the
Plaintiff’s Perpetual Lease from DDA or the original Agreements in favour
of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2, through which they claim their
right. Although they dispute the amount of ground rent claimed, they rely on
the Perpetual Lease dated 05.08.1988 in favour of the plaintiff, to question
the calculation of ground rent. The title of the Plaintiff, on the basis of
RFA 947/2023 Page 13of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
perpetual Lease Deed dated 05.08.1988 , is thus, not in question and is
admitted .
50. The Plaintiff’s locus is further reflected in the notices exchanged in
February and March 2023. The Show-Cause Notice dated 04.02.2023 ,
issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants, including Defendant No. 1,
Surinder Mohan Bhalla, and Defendant No. 2, Ram Swaroop , referred to
the Plaintiff as having executed the Agreements dated 10.03.1989 and
04.02.1992 in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, and asserted
its right to enforce their terms. The Appellants, Defendant No. 3, V.B.
Singh, and Defendant No. 5, Prabhakar Singh , admitted receiving the
Notice and replied on 17.02.2023 . In their reply, they did not deny that the
Plaintiff had executed the original Agreements; they asserted that they had
acquired the spaces from the earlier allottees, had informed the Plaintiff of
those transactions, and had asked it to record their names.
51. To appreciate the locus of the Appellants in the suit property, it is
necessary to examine the rights granted to the original allottees and the
conditions governing their transfer.
52. The Clause 27 of the Agreement dated 10.03.1989 with the
Defendant No.1 in respect of G-10,expressly regulated the transfer of the
licensee’s rights. The relevant extract of which, reads as under:
“Transfer of Licencee rights of the Space will be at the
discretion of the builder. … Any change in the name
(including/addition/deletion) registered as Licencee with
the Company will be deemed as transfer for this purpose.”
53. The requirement of approval is further, stipulated in Clause 41 of the
Agreement, the relevant extract of which, reads as under:
RFA 947/2023 Page 14of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
“A change in the name of the Licencee or a change in the
Constitution of the Licencee whether it is a firm, partnership-
cum-Company, or Limited Company , will need the approval
from the builders in writing.”
54. Clause 27 thus, expressly treated a change in the name of the recorded
licensee, as a transfer, and reserved the discretion of the Builder, to permit a
transfer.
55. A conjoint reading of Clauses 27 and 41 shows that the Agreement
contemplates transfer subject to the Builder’s approval and expressly
required written approval for a change in the licensee’s name, as well as
payment of the prescribed administrative charges by the transferor, at the
time of transfer. NeitherDefendant No. 1, Surinder Mohan Bhalla, in
respect of G-10, nor Defendant No. 2, Ram Swaroop, in respect of G-11,
was granted an unrestricted contractual right to substitute another
person in his place.
56. Furthermore, Defendant No.5, Prabhakar Singh’s letter dated
19.07.2005 to the Plaintiff, establishes that the Appellants requested
substitution of their names and informed the Plaintiff about the outstanding
charges. It does not record the Plaintiff’s approval of the transfer. Nor does
the Letter, by itself, establish that the outstanding charges were paid. The
request and the information conveyed in it, cannot be treated as proof that
the requirements for substitution, were fulfilled.
57. Clause 28 ofAgreement dated 10.03.1989 reinforces this conclusion.It
reads as under:
RFA 947/2023 Page 15of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
“Any delay or indulgence by the Builder in the enforcing of the terms
of this Agreement or any forbearance or giving of time to
Licencees shall not be construed as a waiver on the Builder of any
breach or non-compliance of any of the terms and conditionsof this
agreementby the Licencee nor shall the same in any manner
prejudice the rights of the builder.”
58. It provides that delay, indulgence or forbearance in enforcing the
Agreement does not, by itself, amount to a waiver of a breach. Accordingly,
even if the Plaintiff knew that the Appellants were occupying the premises
or did not respond to their requests, neither circumstance establishes the
approval required, under the Agreement. Silence and the passage of time
cannot replace that approval. The Appellants’ reliance on their letter and the
Plaintiff’s alleged inaction therefore, does not establish compliance with the
contractual conditions for substitution.
59. The Appellants also rely on the Plaintiff’s recognition of transfers,
relating to other units. That reliance does not establish that the Plaintiff
approved the transfers of G-10 or G-11. Each transfer concerns a separate
Unit and must be considered on its own terms, including the conditions in
the relevant License Agreement dated 10.03.1989 for G-10 or 04.02.1992
for G-11. The recognition of another purchaser does not amount to general
or advance approval of every transfer, nor does it dispense with the
requirements applicable to the Appellants’ transfers. In the absence of
material showing that the Plaintiff approved the substitution of the
Appellants’ names in accordance with the relevant Agreements, its treatment
of other allotments, cannot establish such approval.
RFA 947/2023 Page 16of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
60. The Appellants, have relied upon the documents executed in their
favour, to assert ownership of the suit premises. In respect of G-10 , V.B.
Singh relies upon the notarized Agreement to Sell and the registered Will
dated 13.11.2002 executed by Surinder Mohan Bhalla in his favour, together
with the registered General Power of Attorney of the same date executed in
favour of Sudhakar Singh, defendant No.4.
61. In respect of G-11 , Prabhakar Singh relies upon the registered
Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will dated 22.11.2004
executed by Satya Prakash Khera, in his favour.
62. The documents relied upon by the Appellants were executed between
them and their respective predecessors, namely defendant No.1&2. They
may evidence the transactions between those parties, but the Plaintiff was
not a party to or an executant of those documents. Their execution,
therefore, does not by itself establish that the Plaintiff transferred any right
in G-10 or G-11 to the Appellants, approved the substitution of their names,
or gave up any right reserved under the original License Agreements. The
documents cannot, on their own, establish the Appellants’ rights against the
Plaintiff.
63. Furthermore, in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana ,
(2012) 1 SCC 656, the Supreme Court explained that transactions effected
through an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will do not
operate as conveyances of ownership. A Power of Attorney creates an
authority to act on behalf of its executant; it does not itself transfer title to
the attorney. A Will is testamentary and takes effect upon the death of the
testator; its execution does not affect a present transfer of ownership.
Registration of these instruments, does not convert them into a Sale Deed.
RFA 947/2023 Page 17of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
The Court preserved the operation of genuine agreements and powers of
attorney for their lawful purposes, while rejecting their treatment as
substitutes for a conveyance.
64. Thus, the notarized Agreement to Sell concerning G-10 and the
registered Agreement to Sell concerning G-11, cannot be treated as
completed Conveyances, merely because consideration is stated to have
been paid and possession delivered.
65. Even accepting these documents as valid and effective between their
executants and the persons in whose favour they were executed, the
Appellants could acquire only such rights as their predecessors possessed
and were competent to transfer. The validity of a transaction between its
parties, does not enlarge the subject matter of the transfer or extinguish the
rights of a person who was not a party to it. The transferors’ rights
originated in the Agreements executed by the Plaintiff and remained subject
to the applicable conditions governing their transfer.
66. Therefore, the documents relied upon by the Appellants neither
establish a completed sale in favour of the Appellants nor, by their execution
alone, establish an unconditional right against the Plaintiff. Any contractual
rights asserted through those documents, must be considered within the
scope of the rights held by the transferors and the conditions governing their
transfer under the original Agreements.
67. The Appellants, further rely on the DDA’s communication dated
13.12.2019 , issued to implement the directions in O.S. Bajpai v. The
Administrator (Lt. Governor of Delhi) . It permits eligible space buyers in
multi-storeyed buildings on DDA land, to apply for a Deed of Apartment or
conversion of their Units to freehold, subject to the prescribed requirements.
RFA 947/2023 Page 18of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
For leasehold land, the communication provides that Unit owners will be
governed by the applicable terms of the original lease.
68. The Appellants state that they applied in the second week of February
2023, under Form Nos. 295 for G-10 and 299 for G-11, and submitted
supporting documents on 02.05.2023 . By its two Notices dated 26.04.2023 ,
the DDA asked the Plaintiff to state its objections to the proposed
conversions. The Plaintiff objected in response to those Notices. It also filed
an Application dated 08.05.2023 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, stating that it
had received the DDA Notices and asserted that the Appellants had not been
granted rights, under the original Agreements.
69. The DDA’s Status Report, which is undated and was filed pursuant
to the Trial Court’s Notice dated 08.05.2023 , states that the conversion
Applications were rejected. It records the Plaintiff’s objection and the
DDA’s view that the original spaces were granted under Licence
Agreements, while the Appellants relied on subsequent transfers through
GPA and Agreements to Sell. The Report further states that those Licence
Agreements, could not be accepted under the Apartment policy. Thus, there
is no evidence that the Competent Authority accepted the Appellants’ claims
or recognised them as entitled to G-10 or G-11, under the statutory process.
70. The directions in O.S. Bajpai (supra) provide a procedure through
which an eligible Apartment buyer may seek a Deed of Apartment. They
require the Competent Authority to hear the promoter and determine
whether the Apartment was transferred and who is presently entitled to it;
they do not themselves validate every subsequent private transfer. The
Appellants’ Applications, which the DDA’s Status Report records as
rejected, do not establish a statutory right to retain possession against the
RFA 947/2023 Page 19of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
Plaintiff. Nor does the DDA’s position as lessor, extinguish the Plaintiff’s
rights under the Perpetual Lease and the original Agreements.
71. The Appellants have filed CM APPL. 24433/2026 under Order XLI
Rule 27 CPC , seeking to place additional documents on record. They
submit that the documents are necessary to establish the status of
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and of the Appellants in relation to the suit
property, and to enable this Court to render a reasoned judgment.
72. The Appellants state that certain documents were filed before the
learned Trial Court after institution of the present Appeal, while the Suit
remained pending in respect of the other reliefs claimed by Respondent
No.1. They further state that the Suit was withdrawn after they filed an
application dated 31.05.2024 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC , seeking
return of the Plaint on the ground that the dispute was a commercial dispute
of specified value.
73. In support of their Application, the Appellants have relied upon
Gobind Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , 2026 INSC 211 , wherein,
the Supreme Court held that additional evidence may be admitted under
Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in three circumstances. Firstly, where the Trial
Court refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted .
Secondly, where, despite due diligence, the evidence was not within the
party’s knowledge or could not have been produced when the decree was
passed and/or where the Appellate Court requires the evidence to
pronounce judgment or finds another substantial cause for its admission.
74. It is submitted that the additional documents placed on record filed by
the Appellants be taken on record.
RFA 947/2023 Page 20of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
75. The documents include receipts issued by the Plaintiff, M/s Jaina
Properties Pvt. Ltd., to Defendant No. 2, Ram Swaroop, and correspondence
sent by the Plaintiff to him in 1986. They relate to installment payments
made by Ram Swaroop between 1986 and 1988 in respect of
Flat/Shop/Space No. B-14, Plot No. 13, Preet Vihar Commercial Complex ,
and not to the suit property, Unit No. G-11 , allotted to him. Therefore, these
documents are of little relevance to the present Appeal.
76. The second set of receipts, issued by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 2,
Ram Swaroop , in 1991–92, pertains to G-11 , the suit premises allotted to
him. The documents concerning G-10 are in the name of Defendant No. 1,
Surinder Mohan Bhalla , and relate to the years 2002, 2003 and 2007.
77. It is pertinent to mention that these documents now sought to be
placed on record, were already referred to in the Written Statements.
Defendant No. 2, Ram Swaroop, pleaded in his Written Statement that he
had transferred his rights in G-11 to Satya Prakash Khera. In their joint
Written Statement, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, V.B. Singh and Prabhakar
Singh, claimed rights in G-10 and G-11, respectively, on the basis of the
Agreement to Sell and Will dated 13.11.2002 and 22.11.2004.
78. The original allotments of G-10 to Surinder Mohan Bhalla and G-11
to Ram Swaroop, are not disputed.
79. It is also not in dispute that the Appellants claim through those
allotments, V.B. Singh claims through Surinder Mohan Bhalla, while
Prabhakar Singh claims through Satya Prakash Khera, who, according to the
pleaded chain, acquired rights from Ram Swaroop.
RFA 947/2023 Page 21of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
80. In fact, the record shows that the Appellants themselves had relied on
the Agreement to Sell and Will dated 13.11.2002 and 22.11.2004
respectively, to claim their title in the suit property.
81. While considering these documents, it has been noted in the
Impugned Judgment that they do not create any ownership rights in favour
of the Appellant s, and therefore, these are not new documents, but already
have been considered by the learned Trial Court in the Impugned Judgment.
82. Furthermore, reference was made to the judgment of O.S.
Bajpayee (supra) to conclude that in view of the said Judgment, the
Appellants could not make claim an ownership right in the suit property.
83. It is significant to note that, the Appellant himself has stated the three
grounds on which the additional documents can be permitted to be taken on
record under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. However, the pleadings and
material on record, do not show that the pre-existing documents could
not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.
84. Further, in the present case, the Appellants have not explained why
the documents that existed before the decree could not be produced earlier,
or what steps were taken to obtain them. The Application does not explain
when or how the Appellants obtained these documents, the efforts made to
secure them, or the circumstances which prevented their earlier production.
The statement that certain documents were subsequently filed while the Suit
remained pending does not explain their non-production before the decree .
85. The requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are therefore, not
satisfied. The Application under Order XLI Rule 27, is hereby, dismissed.
RFA 947/2023 Page 22of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01
Conclusion:
86. In view of the foregoing discussion, the learned Trial Court rightly
decreed the Suit for possession in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of suit
property.
87. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is
accordingly, dismissed .
88. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER30, 2026 /R
RFA 947/2023 Page 23of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:51:01