Delhi High Court – Orders
Kavita vs Rohit Parashar & Anr on 20 May, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 531/2026, CM APPL. 34631/2026
KAVITA
.....Appellant
Through: Ms Shruti Munjal & Mr Gurmehar
Singh Advocates.
versus
ROHIT PARASHAR & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajan Sharma, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Amish Tandon and Ms.
Akanksha Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 20.05.2026
CM APPL. 34632/2026 (Seeking Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 34633/2026 (under Section 5 Limitation Act read with Section
151 CPC on behalf of the Appellant seeking Condonation of Delay of 3 days
in filing the Appeal)
3. An Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking
Condonation of Delay of 3 days in filing the Appeal.
4. In view of the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed
and delay of 3 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
RFA 531/2026
6. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI CPC has
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2026 at 20:38:19
been filed on behalf of the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated
02.02.2026 whereby the learned District Judge has passed the Decree of
Possession against the Defendant/Appellant who was admittedly a tenant
in the Suit premises, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
7. The Respondent/Plaintiff Rohit Parashar had filed a Suit bearing no.
CS DJ No. 530/2024 for Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, Damages,
Mesne Profits and Permanent and Mandatory Injunction.
8. The facts in brief are that the property bearing Khasra No.C-37,
Khuttakar Road, Village Bawana, Delhi was allotted to Late Sh. Bal Kishan
by Gaon Sabha, Bawana on 07.05.1978. After his demise, his wife Krishna
sold the property to Sh. Ranbir Singh, who further sold the property
consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor to the Plaintiff/
Respondent on 30.05.2024 via Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, Affidavit,
Receipt Possession Letter.
9. Defendant no.1 Kavita was inducted as a tenant on the Ground Floor
of the Suit property, at a rent of Rs.7,000/- per month in the first week of
October, 2023 by Sh. Ranbir Singh. After having purchased the property
from the erstwhile owner, the Plaintiff/Respondent approached her for
signing and executing a fresh Rent Agreement in the first week of June,
2024, but she refused to do so. In fact, she threatened to implicate him in
false cases of POCSO. Written complaint was made to SHO, P.S. Bawana
on 06.06.2024 against the Defendant No.1, though no action was taken.
Thereafter, Legal Notice of Eviction dated 08.06.2024 was duly served upon
the Defendant/Appellant, but she failed to comply with the Notice.
10. The Defendant No.1/Appellant kept creating nuisance for other
tenants and the Plaintiff. Thereafter, another Complaint dated 17.06.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2026 at 20:38:19
was filed in the Police Station by the Plaintiff, on which no action was
taken. Thereafter, he filed multiple Complaints, however, no action was
taken on them as well. The Plaintiff thus, filed the present Suit for
Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent and Damages.
11. The Defendant No.1 filed a Written Statement, wherein she
admitted that she was a tenant, living in the Suit property with her two minor
children. She further claimed that she had been inducted as a tenant by the
earlier landlord, Ranbir Singh. However, thereafter Ranbir Singh staged
managed execution of Will, from Smt. Krishna. It raised suspicious
circumstances, when on 30.05.2024 Ranbir Singh sold the property with a
malafide use of Deed of Will dated 03.06.2024, in respect of entire property.
Smt. Krishna had never been sole and exclusive owner of the property,
though she had executed the customary documents. In fact, one Bal Kishan
had been allotted the pot in question for a period of 99 years, under 20 point
programme of Union of India and these plots were not allowed to be sold to
any third party.
12. When the Defendant No.1/Appellant came in property as a tenant,
Plaintiff had a bad eye on her and wanted to take advantage of her, being
poor and widow. She used to face his comments in the market and local
places, and was also asked to sexually surrender before the Plaintiff. The
Defendant avoided and ignored them all, in order to protect herself and the
minor daughter.
13. Aggrieved by the conduct of Defendant No.1 to decline to surrender and
the Plaintiff being adamant to satisfy his lust at any cost, the Plaintiff
negotiated with the earlier landlord Ranbir Singh, to purchase the property
for a sum of Rs.30,99,900/- and the entire amount was paid in cash, even
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2026 at 20:38:19
though, the actual market value of the property is Rs.70 lakhs approx. The
transfer of property in the name of the Plaintiff, is barred by law.
14. Immediately after purchase of the property, Plaintiff adopted violent
attitude against Defendant No.1/Appellant and the Plaintiff did not waste
even a single opportunity, to harass Defendant No.1 and make sexual
advances. The Appellant got FIR No.0443/2024 registered under Section
115/74/351(3) of BNS 2023 and Section 8 of POCSO Act at Police Station
Bawana. In the same manner, on the same day a cross FIR No.0446/2024
was registered at P.S Bawana, against the Defendant No.1 on the Complaint
of the Plaintiff.
15. Further objections were taken that Ranbir Singh, former owner of the
property, is a proper and necessary party for adjudication of the present
controversy. At the time of commencement of the tenancy of the answering
Defendant No.1 with Sh. Ranbir Singh, it was decided that the former shall
remain as a tenant for three years, as she had two school going children and
were students of local school in the village and it was convenient for both
the children to attend their classes regularly, and that the rent shall be paid
regularly.
16. On merits, the aforesaid defence was reiterated and it was claimed
that all the allegations made were denied, except that she was a tenant
inducted by the erstwhile owner Sh. Ranbir Singh.
17. Learned District Judge vide impugned Judgment dated
19.02.2025, held that the tenancy of the Plaintiff was admitted. The Plaintiff
had purchased the property through GPA, Will etc. from the erstwhile owner
Ranbir Singh. The relationship of landlord-tenant was thus established. The
Notice of termination of tenancy had also been served, for which reliance
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2026 at 20:38:19
was placed on the case of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. vs. Jasbir
Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 183 (2011) DLT 712. Finally, the rent being
more than 3,500/- the Suit Property was not protected under the Delhi Rent
Control Act. Consequently, the Part Decree of Possession was passed
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, while the trial was directed to be continued
qua rate of rent, damages etc.
18. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present Regular First Appeal
has been filed.
19. The grounds of challenge are that the Appellant had specifically
denied the existence of the relationship of landlord-tenant and had taken a
specific defence that she was a tenant of the previous owner, which required
evidence. The alleged admissions were neither categorical nor unconditional
and has to be considered in the context of entire defence of the Appellant.
20. The observation of the learned District Judge that the old tenancy
under Ranbir Singh stood shifted to the present Plaintiff, is legally
unsustainable. The impugned Judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Submissions heard and record perused.
21. The Suit for Recovery of Possession and other reliefs, was sought by
the Plaintiff/Respondent against the Defendant/Appellant, on the averments
that she was inducted as a tenant in the Suit property. The Defendant in her
Written Statement had admitted in paragraph 2 that she was a tenant @
Rs.7,000/- per month inducted by Shri Ranbir Singh the earlier owner of the
Suit property. From the admissions made in the Written Statement, the two
factors are established i.e. the Appellant is a tenant and that the rent is more
than Rs.3,500/- per month and the bar of Delhi Rent Control Act is not
attracted.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2026 at 20:38:19
22. The only point of contention raised by the Appellant, is that the
Respondent Rohit Parashar, is not the landlord of the Suit premises. The
Defendant/Appellant has not denied that she was inducted in the Suit
premises in October, 2023 by Shri Ranbir Singh. The only challenge is the
alleged sale of the property of the erstwhile landlord, Shri Ranbir Singh to
Respondent Rohit Parashar, which is disputed by the Appellant.
23. The Plaintiff Rohit Parashar had explained in the Plaint, that he had
purchased the entire property in question from Shri Ranbir Singh through
Agreement to Sell/GPA/Deed of Will/ Affidavit/ Receipt/ Possession, etc.
dated 30.05.2024. The Plaintiff/Respondent, therefore, on purchase of the
Suit property stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner/landlord.
24. From the averments made in the Written Statement, it emerges that on
purchase of the property, Plaintiff had approached the Appellant for vacating
the property, but she not only intimidated and threatened the Plaintiff, but
even got FIR registered against him, under several provisions of BNS and
Section 8 POCSO Act. The Plaintiff on the other hand, had also made
multiple Complaints against the Defendant/Appellant. It is quite evident that
the Plaintiff had approached the tenant and informed that he has purchased
the Suit property and has also demanded rent, but the Appellant for the
obvious reasons, challenged the title of the Plaintiff and also denied paying
any rent to the Plaintiff. In order to dissuade the Plaintiff and not pay the
rent, she went to the extent of levelling allegations of sexual abuse of herself
and even her little daughter, and got the FIR registered against the Plaintiff.
25. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that there were clear
admissions of the Appellant being a tenant in the Suit premises. The Notice
of Termination of Tenancy dated 08.06.2024 was duly served upon the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2026 at 20:38:19
Appellant. Even if the service of Notice is admitted to be not proved, then
also the institution of Suit for Possession itself is a notice for termination
and eviction, as has been held in the case of “Nopany Investments (P) Ltd.
v. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) 2 SCC 728″. In so far as the Title of the
Respondent as an owner is concerned, he has documents including the GPA
from the erstwhile owner/landlord Ranbir Singh, establishing that the
Respondent has stepped into his shoes in the capacity of a landlord.
26. The Suit for Possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC against the
Appellant/Tenant, has been rightly decreed by the learned District Judge.
27. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby
dismissed.
28. The pending Application(s) are disposed of accordingly.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
MAY 20, 2026/va
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/05/2026 at 20:38:19
