Direct annual rent payments above the statutory threshold place the tenancy outside the Delhi Rent Control Act’s jurisdiction.

The plaintiff sought possession of premises at Mahipalpur, claiming that Defendant No. 2 had originally rented part of the property and that, with Defendant No. 2’s consent, the appellant, Defendant No. 1, became his direct tenant in 2011.

The plaintiff relied on payments made directly to him by the appellant, including annual payments of ₹1,00,000 and ₹1,25,000; the appellant admitted the payments but disputed a direct tenancy and claimed it was a tenant of Defendant No. 2 at ₹3,500 per month. It also invoked the bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).

The Trial Court decreed possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and separately awarded occupation charges under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. The appeal challenged the decree under Order XII Rule 6; the appellant stated that its challenge did not extend to the Order XXXIX Rule 10 determination.

1. Whether the pleadings and admissions established a landlord–tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the appellant sufficient to support a possession decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

2. Whether the suit was barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act because the rent did not exceed ₹3,500 per month

3. Whether the tenancy had been validly terminated, including whether filing the suit for possession was sufficient notice if the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) had not been served

Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, a possession decree may be made on admissions where the essential basis for relief is established; the Court identified the relevant matters as the landlord–tenant relationship, rent exceeding ₹3,500 per month, and termination of the tenancy.

Section 50 of the DRC Act bars civil-court jurisdiction in matters assigned to the Rent Controller, while Section 26(1) provides for simple interest at 15% per annum on rent in default.

In Raghbir Singh v. Sheela Wanti & Anr., AIR 2009 NOC 1851 (Del.), interest on defaulted rent was treated as part of the legally recoverable rent.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 estops a tenant from denying the landlord’s title in the circumstances addressed by the Court.

Under Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728, filing a suit for possession may itself constitute sufficient notice of termination; the judgment also cited Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., (2019) 6 SCC [citation incomplete in the judgment].

The appellant’s admitted payments directly to the plaintiff, considered alongside Defendant No. 2’s written statement corroborating the direct tenancy, supported the finding that the appellant had become the plaintiff’s tenant; the appellant’s explanation that the payments related to a personal loan was found unsupported by particulars.

The Court further held that the annual rent of ₹1,00,000 itself exceeded the statutory monthly threshold. Alternatively, even accepting the appellant’s asserted rent of ₹3,500 per month, the Court relied on Section 26 and Raghbir Singh to treat interest on the unpaid rent as part of the recoverable rent, resulting in a monthly figure of ₹4,025.

Finally, even if the appellant had not received the Section 106 notice, the suit for possession sufficiently communicated termination of the tenancy.

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications; the appellant’s challenge to the separate Order XXXIX Rule 10 determination was not before the Court.