Tenant inducted by landlord is estopped from challenging paramount title under Section 116, Evidence Act.

The Respondent (landlord) inducted the Appellant (tenant) in 2006 for a portion of Plot No. 1-A, Chanakya Place, New Delhi.

In August 2015, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement (Ex. PW1/3) and a fresh Lease Deed (Ex. PW1/4) for a larger area of 133 sq. yds. at a monthly rent of ₹30,000.

The Appellant defaulted on rent from October 2015.

Despite a written undertaking and a Panchayati Faisla to vacate, the Appellant remained in possession, leading to a suit for possession and arrears.

A preliminary decree for possession was passed on 30.03.2021, and possession was restored to the Respondent on 22.03.2022.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of ₹3,00,000 in arrears and mesne profits at ₹30,000 per month.

The Appellant challenged this, alleging the property was "Gram Sabha" land and the lease documents were forged.

1. Whether the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the Suit Property belongs to "Gram Sabha Banjar" under the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

2. Whether the Settlement Agreement (Ex. PW1/3) and Lease Deed (Ex. PW1/4) were forged.

3. Whether the Appellant proved the payment of ₹5,00,000 as pagri or subsequent cash payments of rent.

4. Whether the award of mesne profits at ₹30,000 per month was arbitrary or lacked evidentiary basis.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which estops a tenant from denying the landlord's title during the subsistence of the tenancy.

Sections 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, placing the burden of proof on the party asserting forgery or coercion.

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the subsequent conduct of the party as relevant.

Section 114(g) regarding the adverse inference drawn from the non-production of material witnesses.

Apollo Zipper India Ltd. v. W. Newman & Co. Ltd. (2018) regarding the waiver of objections to a quit notice if not raised at the first instance.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that the Appellant admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and was thus estopped by Section 116 of the Evidence Act from questioning the Respondent's title.

On the issue of forgery, the Court found that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proof as he never filed any criminal complaint or sought forensic examination of the signatures.

The Respondent’s bank passbook (Ex. PW1/5) corroborated the ₹30,000 rent via two distinct credit entries.

The Court dismissed the claims of cash payments and pagri due to a total lack of documentary evidence and the Appellant's failure to examine named witnesses (Anoop Jain and Surinder Sharma), justifying an adverse inference under Section 114(g).

Regarding mesne profits, the Court held that since the last-paid rent was proved to be ₹30,000 for a commercial area, adopting the same rate for mesne profits without periodic enhancement was a conservative and judicious exercise of discretion.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the defense of forgery was a "belated afterthought".