[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Jai Nath Yadav & Anr vs Somnath Yadav @ Shobh Nath Yadav & Anr on 24 March, 2026
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 29.01.2026
Judgment delivered on: 24.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~
+ RFA(COMM) 678/2025 CM APPL. 76289/2025
JAI NATH YADAV & ANR. .....Appellants
versus
SOMNATH YADAV @ SHOBH NATH YADAV & ANR
.....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Srivastav, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Raghunath Dubey, Adv
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
1. The present regular first appeal is directed against the judgment dated
13.10.2025 ['impugned judgment'] passed by the District Judge
(Commercial Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ['the Trial Court'],
in a suit instituted by the Respondent ['the Plaintiff' therein] seeking
recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, etc., against the
Appellants ['the Defendants' therein].
2. The factual matrix as set out in the appeal is as follows: -
2.1. The suit before the Trial Court was filed by the Respondent in its
capacity as the owner and the landlord of property bearing no. R.A.-28, Gali
No. 11/12, Chetan Basti, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi- 110005 ['the
property'], built up to the first floor.
2.2. It was asserted in the suit that in December 2013, Appellant No. 1
approached the Respondent with a request to take the ground floor of the
property on rent for the purpose of running a factory ['the suit property'].
Consequently, the ground floor of the suit property, comprising a hall, was
let out to Appellant No. 1 for a period of eleven [11] months at Rs. 23,000/-
per month [exclusive of water and electricity charges]. The Respondent
asserted that at the request of Appellant No.1 on account of financial
hardship, the monthly rent was lowered to Rs. 21,000/- per month for the
period of 15.10.2016 to 14.09.2017. The last extension was made on
25.10.2016 for the said period of eleven [11] months. It was stated that the
tenancy was extended from time to time through rent agreements, two [2] of
which, dated 25.02.2015 [Ex. PW-1/3] and 25.10.2016 [Ex. PW-1/4] were
relied upon.
2.3. It was stated by the Respondent that thereafter, no further agreements
were executed inter se parties, and the tenancy continued on a month-to-
month basis.
2.4. It was stated that the Appellants defaulted in payment of rent, failed to
vacate the premises and started asserting wrongful claims of ownership
rights in the suit property. In these facts, a legal notice dated 15.02.2019
[Ex. PW-1/7] was issued, terminating the tenancy, demanding arrears of
rent, and calling upon the Appellants to vacate the suit property within a
period of fifteen [15] days.
2.5. The legal notice was duly replied to on 02.03.2019 [Ex. PW-1/10]
wherein the Appellants admitted the landlord-tenant relationship inter se
parties; however, they disputed that any rent was due or that they were liable
to hand over possession of the suit property.
2.6. It was stated that the Appellants have initiated false and perverse legal
proceedings against the Respondent, to continue in possession; therefore, the
Respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne
profits, etc.
3. The Appellants filed their written statement wherein they admitted the
relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties. They, however, disputed
the veracity of the rent agreements dated 25.02.2015 [Ex. PW-1/3] and
25.10.2016 [Ex. PW-1/4] relied upon by the Respondent, instead, they
propounded a rent agreement dated 07.04.2015.
3.1. In addition, the Appellants also relied upon the documents: a Bayana
receipt dated 19.06.2018 [Ex. PW-1/DX-1]; a loan agreement dated
21.12.2015 [Ex. PW-1/DX-2]; a security agreement dated 28.12.2015 [Ex.
PW-1/DX-3]; and an ancillary receipt [Ex. PW-1/DX-4].
On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Appellants contended
that the parties had entered into an agreement to sell ['ATS'] with respect to
the suit property for a sum of Rs. 35,50,000/-, and the aforesaid documents
prove that an amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- has already been paid and
acknowledged by the Respondent towards the said agreement for sale.
3.2. The Appellants contended that an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid
through bank transfers, and the balance amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- was paid
through cash. The table setting out the said payments is as follows:
S.NO. DATE OF MODE OF AMOUNT
TRANSACTION PAYMENT/ PAID
REASON (INR)
1. 21.12.2015 Loan Agreement 4,00,000/-
2. 28.12.2015 Security 7,00,000/-
Agreement
3. 22.02.2016 Cash 1,00,000/-
4. 09.03.2016 Cash 1,00,000/-
5. 22.07.2016 Cash 3,00,000/
6. 29.07.2016 Cash 50,000/-
7. 13.01.2017 Cash 50,000/-
8. 21.01.2017 Cash 1,00,000/-
9. 02.02.2017 Cash 1,00,000/-
10. 20.04.2017 Cash 2,00,000/-
11. 04.05.2017 Cash 1,00,000/-
12. 16.09.2017 Cash 2,00,000/-
13. From 2015 to 2019 Bank Transfer 8,00,000/-
Total 32,00,000/-
4. The aforesaid documents [referred to in paragraph 3.2], relied upon by
the Appellants, were specifically disputed by the Respondent as forged.
Also, the Respondent denied the receipt of any payments in cash and
admitted only the receipt of Rs. 8,00,000/- through bank transfer.
5. Upon completing the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues on
01.06.2022. However, issue no. 3 was re-framed on 13.09.2024. The issues
finally framed, read as follows:
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises from
defendant as alleged? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages @ 3,000/- per day on account of
occupation charges from defendant as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the rent agreement dated 07.04.2015 qua the suit property was
executed between the defendant no. 2 and the plaintiff? If so, its effect?
OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts? OPD
6. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff? OPD
7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees?
OPD
8. Relief."
6. During evidence, Respondent's son/Mr. Sanjay Yadav, who was his
duly authorised power of attorney and had personal knowledge of the
transaction, appeared as PW-1 and appeared to prove the case of the
Respondent vis-à-vis the relationship of landlord and the tenant, termination
of tenancy, arrears of rent, etc.
7. So also, Appellant No. 1 examined himself as DW-1, and Appellant
No. 2 examined himself as DW-2.
DW-3 and DW-4 were examined as the marginal witnesses to the
'disputed documents', i.e., Ex. PW-1/DX-1, Ex. PW-1/DX-2, Ex. PW-
1/DX-3 and Ex. PW-1/DX-4, relied upon by the Appellants.
8. The Trial Court vide the impugned judgment has concluded that the
relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties stands proved by the
unambiguous and unqualified submission made by the Appellants in the
written statement, as well as in the reply dated 02.03.2019 [Ex. PW-1/10] to
the Respondent's legal notice dated 15.02.2019 [Ex. PW-1/7].
9. The Trial Court held that the Appellants' plea in resisting the eviction
on the ground that it is a prospective purchaser, who is occupying the suit
property in part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 ['the TPA'] is not maintainable in view of the fact that the alleged
ATS, purportedly evidenced by the disputed Bayana receipt dated
19.06.2018, is not registered.
This finding was returned notwithstanding the fact that the existence
of the ATS itself could not be proved by the Appellants to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court.
10. The Trial Court held that in view of the due service of the legal notice
dated 15.02.2019 [Ex. PW-1/7] by the Respondent on the Appellants, the
termination of the tenancy stood proved and, therefore, the continued
possession of the Appellants w.e.f. 01.03.2019 was unauthorised.
11. The Trial Court on the basis of the admissions made by the Appellants
in their oral testimony, assessed the mesne profits at Rs. 8,000/- per month
w.e.f. 03.03.2019 and permitted 15% annual enhancement every year till the
actual realisation, along with interest at 9% per annum till realisation.
12. On these findings, the Trial Court accordingly passed a decree for
eviction, arrears of rent for the period April 2015 to February 2019
quantified at Rs. 2,80,000/- and mesne profits from March 2019 till October
2025 quantified at Rs. 9,69,888/- along with interest at 9%. Further, the Trial
Court also directed that Appellants will be entitled to adjust the payment of
Rs. 8,00,000/- made through bank transfer against the decree for arrears of
rent and mesne profits.
13. It is a settled law that in a suit filed by the landlord for recovery of
possession, the Court is liable to determine the existence of the following
three [3] jurisdictional facts before directing eviction: -
a. The existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant.
b. The rate of rent should be more than Rs. 3,500/- per month.
c. The tenancy should have been terminated.
14. The Appellants have been unable to show any error in the finding of
the Trial Court with respect to the existence of the relationship of landlord
and tenant between the parties. The Trial Court relied upon the contents of
the Appellants' reply dated 02.03.2019 [Ex. PW-1/10] and the pleadings in
the written statement admitting the existence of the said relationship. The
Trial Court has returned detailed findings on this aspect in its judgment
while deliberating under issue no. 1 and the Appellants have been unable to
show any error in this finding.
15. In this appeal, during arguments, even before us the Appellants have
not disputed the relationship of landlord and the tenant. In our considered
opinion the Trial Court has correctly relied upon the admissions made in the
written statement and the reply dated 02.03.2019 [Ex. PW-1/10] to the legal
notice [Ex. PW-1/7] to conclude that the relationship of landlord and the
tenants stand proved between the parties. The assertion of the Respondent
that the Appellants were inducted as a tenant in the suit property thus stood
proved. The amount of rent at Rs. 8,000/- per month also was admitted by
the Appellants themselves. So also, the termination of the tenancy stood
proved by the legal notice dated 15.02.2019 [Ex. PW-1/7]. Thus, the three
[3] jurisdictional facts stood proved.
16. Learned counsel for the Appellants during arguments in this appeal,
submitted that the Appellants are willing to vacate the suit premises, subject
to the Respondent being directed to return the amount of Rs. 32,00,000/-
paid to him between 2015 and 2019. This was the fundamental submission
made before us.
It would be pertinent to note that even in their written statement, the
Appellants offered to vacate the suit premises [referred to as tenanted
property in the written statement] if the Respondent returned the amount of
Rs. 32,00,000/- advanced by the Appellants. The relevant paragraph of the
written statement reads as follows:
"If Plaintiff will pay sum of Rs. 32 lacs with interest to Defendant No. 2
then Defendant No. 1 will vacate the tenanted property and if the Plaintiff
want to sold the said property, then Defendant No. 1 is ready and willing to
pay the balance sale consideration as per the market value. Therefore, the
Defendant No. 1 is not liable to pay any rent to the Plaintiff."
[Emphasis supplied]
17. In this regard, we find that the Trial Court has returned a finding that
the Appellants could only prove the payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- to
Respondent through bank transfer and were unable to substantiate the
payments of Rs. 24,00,000/- in cash to the Respondent out of the alleged
payment of Rs. 32,00,000/-.
Further, the Trial Court at paragraph '77' of the impugned judgment
has already granted an adjustment of the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of
the Appellants against the arrears and mesne profits assessed in the
impugned judgment.
18. The Appellants in this appeal essentially seek to contend that the Trial
Court has erred in not granting them the credit of Rs. 24,00,000/- paid over
and above the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- through bank transfer.
19. We however find that the Trial Court at paragraphs '46' and '47' of
the impugned judgment has, by a reasoned finding, held that the alleged
payment of Rs. 24,00,000/- has not been proved. Paragraphs 46 and 47 read
as follows:
"46. Even DW-1 and DW-2, despite detailing alleged payments totaling
Rs. 32 lakhs (including loans and earnest money), utterly failed to
substantiate these with documents filed on record; they produced no income
tax returns, passbooks, or detailed bank statements or any other written
document linking transactions to the claimed sale, relying instead on vague
oral assertions and the very documents confronted (and denied) by PW-1.
Cross-examination of DW-1 dated 20-12-2023 is relevant here and is
reproduced as under,
"...........Q: When you last paid the rental to the plaintiff?
Ans. The plaintiff had taken a security amount of Rs. 7 lakhs from
me and it was agreed in writing that I will not have to pay any
rental or interest and hence no separate rental was paid to the
plaintiff....."
Further, in the cross-examination of DW-2 dated 23-09-2023, he conceded
key admissions reinforcing tenancy:
"...... It is correct that I had entered into the suit premises as a
tenant in April, 2015. It is wrong to suggest that I am residing in
the suit premises since 2014. I had paid rent @ Rs.8000/- per
month for the first time when I had entered as tenant in the suit
premises. Water and electricity charges were to be paid
separately. I had paid rent @ Rs.8000/- per month till December,
2015. It is correct that thereafter I have not paid the rent. (Vol.
We had entered into a security agreement of Rs.7 lacs with
plaintiff and as per the same Rs.7 lacs was paid and it was agreed
that we would neither pay any rent nor would get any interest on
the said amount). It is correct that we have not filed any proof
relating to payment of rent as claimed by me. I am an income tax
payee. I have not shown the amount of Rs.7 lacs in my income tax
return. I have disclosed all my banks account with the income tax
authority. It is correct that there is not entry in any of bank
account to show withdrawal of Rs.7 lacs on 28.12.2015. I have
never issued notice or letter to the plaintiff to return my 7lakh."
...................... "Bayana Receipt was not executed on stamp paper. I
had written the same and plaintiff Somnath had signed the same.
It is correct that I have not shown the amount of Bayana receipt
in my income tax record. I can show the amount paid to the
plaintiff in pursuance to Bayana receipt Ex.PW-1/DX-4 from my
bank account. (Vol. About Rs.8 lacs has been transferred to
plaintiff through bank. Other payments were made in cash after
withdrawal from my bank account). The details of the amounts as
explained by me have not been mentioned in the Bayana Receipt
Ex. PW-1/DX-4 or in the written statement or my evidence
affidavit......"
Hence, it is absolutely clear from the cross-examination of defendants'
witnesses that apart from proving payment of Rs. 8 Lakhs through bank
transfer on different dates, the defendants have failed to substantiate the other
payments as claimed of Rs. 24 Lakhs towards bayana qua agreement to sale
of suit property. Defendants have also admitted having not shown the
aforesaid amount of bayana receipt in their income tax record. Furthermore
the defendants have also not declared the source of aforesaid funds or any
other corroborative documents to support their contention of payment of
bayana to the plaintiff. Collectively, the cross-examination of defendants'
witnesses exposes the defendants' case as evidentially hollow as there is no
proof of payments via records, contradictory witness attestations, and
admissions reverting to tenancy status.
47. The documents PW-1/DX-1: bayana receipt dated 19.06.2018; PW-1/DX-
2: loan agreement dated 21.12.2015; PW-1/DX-3: security agreement dated
28.12.2015; PW-1/DX-4: ancillary receipt were neither formally proved
through independent corroboration nor purported signatures of the plaintiff
thereupon, have been proved by any handwriting expert despite mutual
forgery pleas. Consequently, the Defendants' evidence not only failed to
elevate their status beyond admitted tenancy as reaffirmed in Ex. PW-1/10."
20. In the considered opinion of this Court as well, the Appellants have
been unable to show any error in the said findings of the Trial Court with
respect to lack of proof of the alleged document and receipts of cash
[enlisted in paragraph 3.2 of this judgment and referred to at paragraph 47 of
the impugned judgment].
The Appellants have urged that they should have been permitted by the
Trial Court to lead expert evidence to prove the disputed documents.
However, we find that no such request for leading expert evidence was
raised before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, and since it was raised
at a belated stage, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court,
which order was also challenged by the Appellants and has been upheld by
the High Court in CM (M) 3979/2024. The said order has attained finality.
Thus, on this ground as well Appellants have been unable to show any error
in the findings of the Trial Court for not permitting leading of expert
evidence at a belated stage.
21. In these facts, when the alleged payment of amount of Rs. 24,00,000/-
in cash to the Respondent as claimed by the Appellants could not be proved
to the satisfaction of the Court, no infirmity can be found in the impugned
judgment for not directing the adjustment of the said amount against arrears
of rent and mesne profits.
22. In this suit, there was no counterclaim filed by the Appellants either
for seeking the refund of the amounts of Rs. 32,00,000/- paid by it under the
disputed agreements or for specific performance of the alleged ATS. In fact,
the Trial Court need not have even adjudicated on such a defence,
considering that there was no counterclaim filed by the Appellants.
23. Nevertheless, the Trial Court, in order to do complete justice between
the parties, proceeded to examine the defence raised by the Appellants.
Upon such examination, and in the absence of any cogent evidence in
support of the alleged payments, the Trial Court rightly declined to grant any
benefit to the Appellants for the claim of Rs. 24,00,000/-.
24. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (Through Director) v. State of
Haryana & Anr.1 and held that the disputed agreements relied upon by the
Appellants, in any event, cannot form the basis of the transfer of title in
favour of Appellants, which is a correct finding in law. The disputed
agreements admittedly do not satisfy the test of Section 54 of TPA. So also,
(2012) 1 SCC 656
the reliance placed by the Trial Court on the judgment of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Jagdambey Builders Pvt Ltd. v. JS. Vohra2 to hold
that the intended purchaser cannot invoke Section 53A of the TPA unless
the ATS is a registered document, in view of the amendment made to the
Act post 2001, is also correct. Considering that the alleged ATS was never
registered and the Appellants admit that the alleged ATS is not registered,
the law laid down in Jagdambey Builders (supra) following Section 53A of
the TPA squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
In our considered opinion, the stand of the Appellants in seeking
refund of the alleged amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- paid in cash, shows election
of abandonment of the claim for specific performance of the alleged ATS
and for this reason as well Appellants have no basis to continue to resist
handing over possession of the suit property.
25. Thus, the three [3] jurisdictional facts for passing the decree of
eviction in a case of landlord-tenant stood proved in the facts of this case
and the Trial Court correctly passed the decree of eviction. The Appellants
have not disputed the computation of the arrears and mesne profits. Even
otherwise, this Court finds that the Trial Court has awarded mesne profits at
the lowest rate of Rs. 8,000/- by relying upon the admissions in the
testimony of DW-2 and, therefore, the said assessment of mesne profits also
does not require any interference. The grant of enhancement at 15% per year
as well as interest at 9% per annum is also reasonable that this is a
commercial property and used for commercial purpose by the Appellants. In
these facts, there is no error in the order of the Trial Court in the
appreciation of the evidence which was before it. We, therefore, find no
2016 SCC OnLine Del 765
ground made out for interference in this appeal.
26. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending applications [if any] are
disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MARCH 24, 2026/msh/aa
