In a batch of appeals filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), regarding the judgment and decree by the Additional District Judge, Rohini District Courts, Delhi, whereby the respondent’s suit seeking recovery of possession of a shop in Azadpur, New Delhi was decreed with permanent injunction and recovery of damages, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani disposed of the appeals while refusing to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The respondent had filed a suit against the appellant, contending that he was a rank trespasser in the suit property, and, by the impugned order, the Trial Court held that the respondent was entitled to recover possession of the suit property. By an order dated 25-11-2024, the predecessor bench had stayed the impugned judgment and decree. This order was challenged by the respondent through a Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court, requesting the Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the appeal seeking a stay of the impugned judgment.

The appellant submitted that the Trial Court had rejected his contention that he was a tenant in the suit property under the respondent for a rental of Rs. 2000/-. He submitted that his tenancy was oral, beginning in 2001, with the rent increased by Rs. 150/- per month every third year, thereby rendering the respondent’s suit barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). It was also asserted by the appellant that the rent was paid in cash without any receipt being issued, and he submitted certain documents to prove his tenancy.

The Court found it evident that the suit had been decreed on the basis that the appellant had failed to prove that he was the respondent’s tenant or that he was paying him monthly rent for the suit property. It was noted that the appellant had not produced any lease agreement or rent deed to establish his status as a tenant, and that he had also failed to adduce oral evidence to that effect.

The Court stated that merely filing an application before the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the DRC Act does not prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. It was noted that the Trial Court had relied on a certified copy of a lease agreement for a similarly situated property to ascertain the issue of mesne profits/damages for unauthorized use, and had assessed the damages payable by the appellant to be Rs. 40,000/- per month from August 2011, as well as pendente lite and future.

The Court opined that the damages assessed had a justifiable basis, found the same to be reasonable, and refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Thus, the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

In the appeal filed by the respondent regarding enhancement of the mesne profits/damages awarded by the Trial Court, the Court stated that there was no basis for the respondent to seek the same and rejected the prayer.

Regarding two other people who had also allegedly occupied the suit property in an unauthorized manner, the respondent prayed before the Court to hold them liable for such trespass and to issue damages against them as well. However, the Court rejected the prayer and disposed of the respondent’s appeal.

Appearances:

RFA 36/2024 –

For Appellant – Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Atharv Bhardwaj, Ms. Nayanika Tahlan

For Respondent – Dr. Amit George, Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Ms. Aishwarya Singh, Ms. Rupam Jha, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Mr. Vaibhav, Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Mr. B.A. Pamidighantam, Mr. Prateek Srivastava

RFA 298/2024 –

For Appellant – Dr. Amit George, Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Ms. Aishwarya Singh, Ms. Rupam Jha, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Mr. Vaibhav, Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Mr. B.A. Pamidighantam, Mr. Prateek Srivastava

For Respondent – Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Atharv Bhardwaj, Ms. Nayanika Tahlan