Court may direct deposit of use and occupation charges under Order XV-A CPC despite disputed title.

The Plaintiffs, including Smt. Saira Banu Khan (widow of late Sh. Dilip Kumar), claim absolute co-ownership of a 9-bigha property in Mehrauli, tracing title to a registered sale deed held by their predecessor, Ms. Roshan Ara Begum.

They allege Defendant No. 1 was a mere caretaker under various undertakings and agreements (dated 1979, 1991, 2011, and 2019) who was granted limited accommodation in an outhouse and garage.

Following the termination of the caretaker arrangement in 2022/2023, the Defendants allegedly refused to vacate and attempted to create third-party rights by leasing a portion of the property for ₹2,10,000/- per month.

The Defendants contested the suit, asserting ownership through an oral gift (Hibba) purportedly made by the deceased owner in 1980, and claimed the Plaintiffs' suit was barred by acquiescence due to their 44-year possession and construction on the site.

Plaintiff No. 2 filed an application under Order XV-A CPC seeking interim mesne profits.

Whether the Court can direct a defendant to deposit use and occupation charges under Order XV-A CPC when the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s title and asserts independent ownership.

Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case and preponderance of probabilities to entitle them to interim mesne profits pending trial.

The Court applied Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by the Delhi High Court), which empowers the court to direct an unauthorized occupant to deposit arrears and monthly charges for use and occupation during the pendency of a suit.

It relied on the principle from Raghubir Rai v. Prem Lata [2014 SCC OnLine Del 3045], establishing that "owner/lessor" includes those claiming a better right to possession, and the court is not restricted to "admitted" amounts but may determine a reasonable sum based on the material on record.

The court further noted that under Section 4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972, transfers during acquisition proceedings are restricted.

The court considered the requirements of a valid Hibba (Oral Gift) under Mohammedan Law.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a superior prima facie title based on registered sale deeds, whereas the Defendants’ claim of an oral gift was undermined by inconsistent stands taken in prior litigations.

Specifically, the Court noted that Defendant No. 1 had previously disclaimed ownership in 1992 and described himself as an "ultimate user" to the MCD in 2011, which contradicted his current plea of Hibba.

The Court rejected the argument that long-standing possession precludes Order XV-A, stating that once permission is terminated, continued occupation is unauthorized.

Regarding quantum, the Court adopted the figure of ₹2,10,000/- per month, noting that the Defendant himself had executed a rent deed for a portion of the property at that rate, serving as a reliable market indicator.

It held that the Plaintiffs established a prima facie right and that the Defendants failed to prove a lawful right to remain without payment.

The Court directed the Defendants to deposit mesne profits at the rate of ₹2,10,000/- per month from September 25, 2024, until March 31, 2026, with the Registrar General.

Arrears are to be cleared within six weeks, and monthly deposits must continue by the 10th of each month.

The holding is provisional and subject to the final adjudication of the suit.