Filing of Eviction Suit Governed by General Law Operates as Valid Termination of Tenancy

The Appellant (tenant) challenged a first appellate judgment dated 23.03.2026, which upheld an ex-parte decree for possession and mesne profits regarding a garage in Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi.

The Respondent (landlord) originally filed the suit after terminating the oral tenancy via notice and alleging misuse of the property for commercial purposes.

While the Appellant claimed he was never served and that his thumb impressions on the process server's report were obtained under misconception, the trial court proceeded ex-parte as no written statement was filed despite service on 23.11.2022.

The Appellant’s subsequent application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause and unexplained delay.

1. Whether the summons were duly served upon the Appellant in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed and the tenancy was validly terminated to justify a decree for possession.

3. Whether the grant of mesne profits at ₹8,000/- per month was legally sustainable without an independent inquiry.

The court applied Section 100 of the CPC, which restricts the scope of a Regular Second Appeal to substantial questions of law and precludes interference with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse.

It relied on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the termination of tenancy, and Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which exempts premises with rent exceeding ₹3,500/- from rent control protection.

Furthermore, the court applied the precedent from Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), establishing that the mere filing of an eviction suit under general law operates as a notice to quit.

The court found that the Appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law, as his challenges pertained purely to findings of fact regarding service of summons.

The court noted that the Appellant did not deny his thumb impression on the process server's report, and his plea of "misconception" was insufficient to dislodge the presumption of regularity in official acts.

On merits, the landlord-tenant relationship was deemed "admitted" through previous litigation records and the Appellant’s own statements.

Since the occupation charges (₹4,195/-) exceeded the ₹3,500/- threshold, the Delhi Rent Control Act did not apply.

The court reasoned that even if the initial termination notice was disputed, the service of the suit summons itself functioned as a legal notice to quit under the Nopany doctrine.

Finally, the mesne profits were upheld as reasonable given the prime location of the property.

The court affirmed the decree for possession and the recovery of mesne profits at ₹8,000/- per month with 6% interest.

It specifically held that the Appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree barred relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.