Disputed rent deposits in summary proceedings cannot establish a landlord-tenant relationship or prove tenancy.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, and damages regarding shop No. C-20, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi

The Appellant (Defendant No. 1) claimed he was an oral tenant since 2001 at a monthly rent of ₹1,500, later enhanced to ₹2,000, and therefore sought protection under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act

Conversely, the Respondent alleged that the Appellant was a rank trespasser who forcibly occupied the premises after a previous tenant vacated in July 2011

On January 6, 2024, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent, ordering the restoration of possession and awarding mesne profits of ₹40,000 per month

Both parties appealed: the Appellant challenged the decree of possession, while the Respondent (in RFA 298/2024) sought enhancement of mesne profits

1. Whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, thereby barring the civil suit under Section 50 of the DRC Act.

2. Whether the Appellant and other defendants were rank trespassers liable for eviction and mesne profits.

3. Whether the mesne profits of ₹40,000 per month assessed by the Trial Court were justifiable or required enhancement.

The Court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the right to appeal from original decrees

It examined Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act for the recovery of specific immovable property

Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which bars civil court jurisdiction when a tenant is protected by the Act

The Court further applied the evidentiary principle that proceedings for the deposit of rent under the DRC Act (Section 21/27) are summary in nature and do not conclusively establish a landlord-tenant relationship if the same is disputed

Regarding mesne profits, the Court relied on the principle of comparable rental value based on exhibited lease deeds of similarly situated properties

The Court observed that the Appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving tenancy, as he produced no lease agreement, rent receipts, or credible oral evidence to substantiate his claim

The Appellant’s reliance on APMC receipts and electricity bills was deemed insufficient to prove a "landlord-tenant" relationship, only showing occupation

The Court clarified that the Appellant’s act of depositing rent under the DRC Act was a unilateral summary process and did not create a tenancy, especially since the Respondent never withdrew the amount and consistently disputed the relationship

Consequently, the Trial Court’s finding that the Appellant was a trespasser was upheld

Regarding mesne profits, the Court found the Trial Court’s assessment of ₹40,000 per month reasonable, as it was based on an unrebutted lease deed (Ex. PW1/23) of a comparable property in the same locality, whereas the Respondent’s claim for ₹1,00,000 per month lacked sufficient evidentiary backing

It simultaneously dismissed RFA 298/2024, holding that there was no basis to enhance the mesne profits or extend liability to other defendants who were not in primary occupation

The Trial Court's judgment and decree dated January 6, 2024, for restoration of possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits at ₹40,000 per month were affirmed

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly