Recently, the Delhi High Court examined whether a landlord could recover possession and arrears from a long-standing tenant despite a protracted period of non-payment and objections on jurisdiction. The case probes critical questions around valuation for pecuniary jurisdiction, the application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC for summary decrees, and the tenant’s ability to challenge the landlord’s title. The Court sheds light on how courts balance statutory provisions, market realities, and procedural doctrines in landlord–tenant conflicts. Read on to uncover the Court’s detailed observations and reasoning that guided its conclusions.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a tenancy dispute concerning a small commercial shop in Delhi, where Naseem Ahmed had been inducted as a tenant by Gayatri Devi at a monthly rent later increased to Rs. 780/-. After Gayatri Devi’s death, her son Deepak Singh claimed ownership under a will and alleged that the tenant had defaulted on rent for several years and continued in unauthorised occupation. An earlier eviction petition filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act was withdrawn after it was found inapplicable to the premises. Deepak thereafter issued a termination notice demanding rent at the prevailing market rate and filed a civil suit seeking possession, arrears, mesne profits, and injunction. The Commercial Court decreed possession in his favour under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the landlord–tenant relationship was admitted, the DRC Act did not apply, and the tenancy stood validly terminated. The tenant challenged the decree, disputing the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction and the basis of the possession order.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the District Judge (Commercial Court) had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, asserting that the valuation was arbitrarily based on a notional rent of Rs. 20,000 per month without any supporting material. It was argued that the valuation lacked legal or factual foundation and that the matter ought to have fallen within the jurisdiction of a lower court. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Chand Bal v. Kamal Kumar.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent submitted that the landlord had approached three different forums, and in each, the Appellant raised jurisdictional objections to delay the matter. It was argued that after withdrawing the eviction petition before the Rent Controller due to such objections, the Respondent filed a civil suit, where the Appellant again objected to jurisdiction, claiming it lay with the Commercial Court. The same objection is now being repeated. The Respondent further contended that the tenancy was duly terminated, yet the Appellant, a month-to-month tenant, has neither vacated the premises nor paid rent since 2011. Emphasising that the market rent is around Rs. 30,000 per month, the Respondent maintained that the valuation of the suit was appropriate and alleged that the Appellant has taken inconsistent and dishonest stands throughout the proceedings.
Observation of the Court:
The Court emphasized that courts are entitled to take judicial notice of rent escalation in metropolitan cities like Delhi, noting that even a conservative escalation from the last admitted rent in 2011 or from adjacent properties rented at Rs.7,000 in 2018 would exceed Rs.3 lakhs, rendering the Respondent’s valuation of Rs.20,000 per month reasonable and not arbitrary. The Court relied on precedents such as S. Kumar v. G.R. Kathpalia, where the Supreme Court held that courts cannot ignore prevailing market conditions and the rise in rents while considering valuation, and Sneh Vaish v. State Bank of Patiala, reiterating that the real value of property, and not artificially suppressed contractual rent, is to be considered for determining pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the valuation of the suit was reasonable and could not be called arbitrary. On judicial notice of market rents, the Court noted,"Admittedly, the defendant has paid the rent of the suit shop till 30.06.2011 @ ₹780 per month. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the rent of the suit shop remained the same as in the year 2011 till the filing of the suit in the year 2024. It is a settled law that Court can take judicial notice of the increase of rent in Delhi."
The Court emphasized that "It is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litis and in him vests the power to choose the court and determine the valuation of the suit for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction and that the defendant cannot insist that the suit be tried before a particular court. Nor can the courts compel the plaintiff to go to another court or interfere with his valuation of the suit."
Further, the Court highlighted the Doctrine of Approbation and Reprobation, while stating, "It is an elementary rule that a party litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions in Court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to the detriment of his opponent."
On the validity of decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court observed, "So long as these two aspects are not in dispute, Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC". The Court further noted, "The defendant being a tenant cannot challenge the validity of the Will executed by the mother of plaintiff. It is a settled law that a tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord."
Finally, on notice to quit under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, the Court held that "It is a settled law that even filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant."
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed, with the Appellant directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondent within three months from the date of the order.
Case Title: Naseem Ahmed Vs. Deepak Singh
Case No: RFA(COMM) 503/2025 & CMAPPL. 52643/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shail Jain
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Mohd. Ikram
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Raghu Nath Dubey
