Facts
The respondents/plaintiffs claimed ownership of property No. I-2265, DSI IDC, Narela, Delhi, and alleged that the appellant/defendant occupied it as a tenant at a monthly rent of ₹73,000 from 16 April 2013.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–15They claimed arrears of rent, electricity, maintenance and CEPT charges after the appellant stopped making payments from April 2020.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–15The appellant admitted the landlord–tenant relationship but asserted that the monthly rent was ₹15,000, that it had vacated the premises on 22 November 2020, and that the relevant charges had been paid.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–15It also claimed refund of a security deposit of ₹4,67,500.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–15The District Judge held that neither party had conclusively proved the claimed rent, but inferred a monthly rent of ₹16,363 from payments totalling ₹3,60,000.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 20–24The suit was decreed for ₹7,40,157 with interest at 9% per annum.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 20–24The appellant challenged the decree under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 25In appeal, the High Court accepted ₹15,000 as the monthly rent, rejected the electricity claim, but upheld liability for maintenance and CEPT charges.
Source reference: pp. 9–13, paras. 39–59Issues
Whether the monthly rent payable by the appellant was ₹73,000 as claimed by the respondents or ₹15,000 as asserted by the appellant?
Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 17(i); pp. 9–10, paras. 42–47Whether the respondents were entitled to arrears of rent for the period from April 2020 to November 2020?
Source reference: p. 5, para. 17(ii); pp. 10–11, paras. 46–47Whether the appellant was liable to pay ₹5,79,554 towards outstanding electricity charges?
Source reference: p. 11, heading II; paras. 48–52Whether the appellant was liable to pay maintenance charges and CEPT charges of ₹28,611 and ₹1,088 respectively?
Source reference: p. 12, heading III; paras. 53–57Whether the respondents were entitled to interest and, if so, at what rate and for what period?
Source reference: p. 5, para. 17(iii); p. 13, paras. 58–59Law Applied
The appeal was adjudicated under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing a first appeal from an original decree.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 25The Court applied the principles that a landlord–tenant relationship may be established through admission and attornment, including payment of rent by the tenant to the subsequent owner.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 39–40The party asserting a particular contractual rent bears the burden of proving it through reliable evidence; where the documentary record establishes a different amount, the proved amount prevails.
Source reference: pp. 9–11, paras. 42–47A monetary claim must be supported by legally admissible and sufficiently proved documentary evidence, and an unproved photocopy or bill cannot, by itself, conclusively establish liability.
Source reference: pp. 11–12, paras. 48–52Interest is discretionary and may be awarded at a reasonable rate based on the circumstances of the case.
Source reference: p. 13, para. 59Reasoning
The Court first held that the landlord–tenant relationship was admitted and established because the appellant had occupied the premises under the erstwhile owner, attorned the respondents after their purchase, and paid rent and other charges to them until March 2020.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 39–41On the rent issue, the respondents produced no convincing evidence of a monthly rent of ₹73,000, whereas the appellant’s bank statement showed repeated payments of ₹60,000, which, together with the respondents’ admission that rent was paid up to March 2020, supported a monthly rent of ₹15,000.
Source reference: pp. 9–10, paras. 43–46The trial court therefore erred in averaging the payments and fixing rent at ₹16,363; arrears for April to November 2020 were recalculated at ₹1,20,000.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 47Regarding electricity charges, the respondents relied on an electricity bill and referred to an amount of ₹9,49,599 already paid or adjusted.
Source reference: pp. 11–12, paras. 48–52However, they neither produced the original bills nor sufficient proof establishing any balance specifically payable by the appellant.
Source reference: pp. 11–12, paras. 48–52The Court consequently set aside the award of ₹5,79,554.
Source reference: pp. 11–12, paras. 48–52In contrast, the maintenance bill reflected arrears of ₹28,611 plus surcharge of ₹408, totalling ₹29,019, and the appellant produced no proof of payment.
Source reference: p. 12, paras. 53–57The CEPT charge of ₹1,088 also remained unrebutted.
Source reference: p. 12, paras. 53–57The Court accordingly modified the decree and awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit.
Source reference: p. 13, paras. 58–59Holding
The appeal was partly allowed.
The High Court held that the monthly rent was ₹15,000 and that the appellant was liable for rent arrears of ₹1,20,000 for April–November 2020, maintenance charges of ₹29,019, and CEPT charges of ₹1,088.
Source reference: p. 13, paras. 58–60The claim of ₹5,79,554 towards electricity charges was rejected for want of sufficient proof.
Source reference: p. 13, paras. 58–60The decree was accordingly modified from ₹7,40,157 to ₹1,50,107, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of institution until realization.
Source reference: p. 13, paras. 58–60Original Court PDF
Maha Shiv EnterprisesvsUma Shankar And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in