Facts
The Respondent (landlord) filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, and mesne profits against the Appellant (tenant) regarding Shop Nos. 3517/11 and 3517/12, Qutub Road, Delhi
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The Respondent claimed the Appellant was inducted in 2001 at a monthly rent of Rs. 13,500 and defaulted on payments in August and September 2019
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2-3Tenancy was terminated via a legal notice dated 19.09.2019
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The Appellant contested the suit, asserting that the actual rent was below Rs. 3,500 (placing it under the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act) and that the additional payments were installments toward an oral "Agreement to Sell" the property for Rs. 10 lakhs reached in 2016
Source reference: p. 2-4, para. 5-12The Trial Court (19.07.2024) and the First Appellate Court (31.10.2025) both ruled in favor of the Respondent, finding no evidence of a sale agreement and confirming the rent at Rs. 13,500
Source reference: p. 1, 6Issues
1. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree of ejectment, arrears of rent, and mesne profits based on the established landlord-tenant relationship?
Source reference: p. 4, para. 14(i)-(iv)2. Whether an Agreement to Sell existed between the parties for a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the year 2016?
Source reference: p. 4, para. 14(v)3. Whether the Appellant could challenge the ownership title of the Respondent while being a tenant in the premises?
Source reference: p. 8-9, para. 304. Whether the present Regular Second Appeal raised any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC?
Source reference: p. 9, para. 31Law Applied
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits Regular Second Appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law
Source reference: p. 1, 9Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the termination of tenancy by notice
Source reference: p. 6, para. 19Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which establishes the principle of estoppel, preventing a tenant from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of the tenancy
Source reference: p. 8, para. 30Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, regarding the mandatory registration of leases exceeding twelve months
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 23Reasoning
The High Court observed that the Appellant admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and the receipt of the termination notice
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 26-27The court rejected the Appellant's defense regarding an oral Agreement to Sell, noting that no documentary evidence or specific deed was produced to prove such an agreement, and bank statements (Ex.PW1/2) reflected payments as rent rather than sale installments
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 17-18; p. 8, para. 29Regarding the challenge to the Respondent's ownership, the court held that under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the Appellant, having entered the property as a tenant, was estopped from questioning the landlord's title
Source reference: p. 8-9, para. 30The court concluded that the findings of the lower courts were based on a proper appreciation of facts and admissions, and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the application of the law
Source reference: p. 8, para. 27; p. 9, para. 31Holding
The High Court held that the appeal raised no substantial question of law, as the challenges pertained solely to factual findings which had been concurrently decided by the lower courts
The court affirmed the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court for possession and mesne profits
Source reference: p. 9, para. 31The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of
Source reference: p. 9, para. 31-32Original Court PDF
Gulshan KhuranavsManju Monga
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in