Delhi High Court
Ms Yasmeen vs Mohd Anis on 23 May, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 15th May, 2026
Pronounced on: 23rd May, 2026
+ RFA 511/2026, CM APPL. 33202/2026, CM APPL. 33203/2026,
CM APPL. 33204/2026
MS. YASMEEN
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Harsh Kumar, Mr. Bipin Jha,
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr. Abdul
Hameed Khan, Advocates
versus
MOHD ANIS .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC“) against
the Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.2026 whereby the Suit filed by the
Plaintiff seeking possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits,
was decreed.
2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Mohd. Anis, filed a Civil Suit bearing CS
DJ No. 555/2019 for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits
and injunction.
3. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiff, Mohd. Anis, was the owner
of property bearing No. 3286, Fourth Floor, Bazar Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj,
RFA 511/2026 Page 1 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
New Delhi-110002, comprising of three bedrooms, one drawing room, one
kitchen and one bathroom with toilet, admeasuring about 100 sq. yds.
(hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”).
4. The Defendant/Appellant, Ms. Yasmeen, was inducted as a tenant in
the Suit Property on 01.08.2013, for a fixed period of 11 months at a
monthly rent of Rs.16,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges, to be
paid directly to the concerned authorities, as per consumption. The
possession of the Suit Property was handed over to the Defendant on
01.08.2013. Thereafter, a Lease Deed dated 02.08.2013 was executed, in
confirmation of the tenancy created in favour of the Defendant.
5. The tenancy expired by efflux of time on 01.07.2014, despite which
the Defendant failed to hand over the possession. The parties mutually
agreed to payment of enhanced rent of Rs.17,000/- exclusive of water and
electricity charges, w.e.f. 01.07.2014.
6. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was irregular in making
payment of rent and had been in arrears of rent since 01.07.2016. The
Defendant had also not paid the electricity and water charges to the
concerned authorities. The arrears of electricity charges mounted to
Rs.38,880/-, which were payable by the Defendant.
7. Despite repeated requests made by the Plaintiff to pay the arrears of
rent and electricity and water charges, the Defendant avoided making the
payment on one pretext or the other. Eventually, the Defendant handed over
one cheque bearing No. 017537 dated 25.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,000/-
and another cheque bearing No. 017534 dated 30.11.2016 for a sum of
Rs.6,000/- towards the electricity charges due and payable by her. Apart
RFA 511/2026 Page 2 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
from the aforesaid two cheques, the Defendant failed to pay any amount
towards the arrears of rent, w.e.f. 01.07.2016.
8. The Plaintiff, thereafter, issued a Legal Notice dated 20.02.2017
terminating the tenancy of the Defendant and calling upon her to hand over
the vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit Property, as well as to pay the
arrears of rent.
9. The Defendant sent a Reply dated 02.03.2017 wherein she denied
the ownership of the Plaintiff, in respect of the Suit Property. The Defendant
claimed that she had purchased the Suit Property from one Mohd. Asad
Khan. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had also made various false
and frivolous allegations against him, in the said Reply. According to the
Plaintiff, the intentions of the Defendant and her husband were mala fide
and fraudulent.
10. Furthermore, it is claimed that, Mohd. Asad Khan was neither the
owner nor in possession of the Suit Property and, therefore, had no right,
title or interest to transfer the property to any third party.
11. The Plaintiff thus, filed the Suit seeking recovery of possession,
arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,36,000/- along with interest @ 12% per
annum, and further claimed mesne profits/use and occupation charges
amounting to Rs.4,42,000/- for the period w.e.f. 06.03.2017 till the filing of
the present Suit.
12. The Plaintiff also sought future damages/mesne profits along with
pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. A decree of mandatory
injunction was also sought directing the Defendant to pay the electricity
charges, and a decree of permanent injunction was sought restraining the
Defendant from creating any third-party interest in the Suit Property.
RFA 511/2026 Page 3 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
13. The Defendant, in the Written Statement, stated that the Suit
Property had been taken by her husband, Mohd. Khalil, from one Mohd.
Asad Khan S/o Mohd. Rais Khan and, therefore, Mohd. Khalil and Mohd.
Asad Khan were necessary parties, to the present Suit.
14. It was further stated that Mohd. Khalil, husband of the Defendant,
had taken the Suit Property from Mohd. Asad Khan on 02.08.2013, under an
Agreement and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was allegedly paid through cheque.
15. It was further claimed that an additional amount of Rs.11,70,000/-
was also allegedly paid by the husband of the Defendant, to Mohd. Asad
Khan through cheque. Thereafter, he claimed that the suit property had been
handed over to her husband, by way of mortgage and the original papers
were also handed over to him. Further, as per the alleged Mortgage Deed
dated 26.05.2015, Mohd. Khalil had the right to take possession of the
property and recover the amount advanced by him.
16. The Defendant further averred that the Plaintiff, who was residing in
the same locality, had represented that he had purchased the Suit Property
from Mohd. Asad Khan and had thereafter, rented it out to him, though the
entire sale consideration had allegedly not been paid by Mohd. Asad Khan.
It was further alleged that upon payment of the balance amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-, Mohd. Asad Khan was to become the owner of the property
and the requisite documents were to be executed in his favour.
17. The Defendant further alleged that, by way of security, Mohd. Asad
Khan had handed over possession of the property to her husband and had
also issued two cheques in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.9,70,000/-.
Further, additional amounts were subsequently paid on demand, before
execution of the documents in the presence of the Plaintiff, Mohd. Anis, and
RFA 511/2026 Page 4 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
subsequently, security cheques amounting to Rs.2,84,000/- and
Rs.3,00,000/- were also issued to the Defendant.
18. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff started claiming himself to
be the owner of the property and Mohd. Asad Khan disappeared. It was
further alleged that Mohd. Anis, plaintiff got the Gift Deed executed in his
favour, at the instance of Mohd. Asad Khan.
19. The Defendant further claimed that she and her husband, had lodged
complaints with the Police and during the course of investigations, it was
revealed that, Mohd. Asad Khan had allegedly cheated several persons and
that six FIRs had been registered against him. It was further alleged that
Mohd. Asad Khan had thereafter, disappeared, despite which the Plaintiff
never lodged any complaint against him, which according to the Defendant,
reflected that the Plaintiff was acting in connivance with Mohd. Asad Khan.
20. The Defendant, however, made a Police Complaint dated
20.02.2017 against Mohd. Asad Khan and Mohd. Anis, the Plaintiff.
Thereafter, the Defendant/husband of the Defendant also filed a Criminal
Complaint before the learned MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. However, as
the Complaint was not pursued, the same came to be dismissed in default.
21. The Defendant further alleged that she and her husband were in
possession of the Suit Property and Mohd. Asad Khan was in jail. It was
further alleged that certain persons, namely, Zulfikar, Yahiya and Chand,
who were stated to be persons of criminal antecedents, started threatening
the Defendant to vacate the premises. The Defendant further alleged that
since Mohd. Asad Khan was not being released on bail, he got the Gift Deed
and the Lease Deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff, on account of the
RFA 511/2026 Page 5 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
payments allegedly made by him, much after possession of the Suit Property
had already been handed over to the Defendant and her husband.
22. Furthermore, the Defendant averred that the Plaintiff had started
asserting himself to be the owner of the Suit Property, which according to
the Defendant was an act of cheating on the part of Mohd. Asad Khan and
the Plaintiff, who, in connivance with each other, were trying to get the
Defendant evicted from the suit Property.
23. The Defendant further alleged that the Plaintiff was claiming
himself to be the owner of the Suit Property on the basis of the Gift Deed,
which according to her was without possession and, therefore, not valid in
law. Furthermore, the Gift Deed had been executed in favour of the Plaintiff
in the year 2018, though the Suit Property had allegedly been leased out in
the year 2013. The Defendant thus, claimed that the Suit was liable to be
rejected on this ground as well.
24. It was further claimed that the Suit for possession against the
Defendant and her husband, was not maintainable and was liable to be
dismissed. The Defendant further alleged that she had been in continuous
possession of the Suit Property since 02.08.2013 and that an alleged
Agreement dated 26.05.2015 had also been executed by Mohd. Asad Khan.
The Defendant thus, claimed that the present Suit was not maintainable.
25. It was further asserted that Wasiuddin, the erstwhile owner, who
had executed the Gift Deed, was also a necessary party to the present Suit.
26. The Defendant further asserted that the Lease Deed had been forged
and that the Defendant had no knowledge as to when the Gift Deed was
executed, as she along with her husband, had been in continuous possession
of the Suit Property. The Defendant further alleged that the Plaintiff had
RFA 511/2026 Page 6 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
rendered himself liable for perjury before the Civil Court, under Sections
193/196/211 IPC.
27. It was further stated that the Suit was bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties, as the Defendant was residing in the Suit Property as the
wife of Mohd. Khalil Ahmed, who had allegedly taken the property earlier
on rent and after making payment of the sale consideration to Mohd. Asad
Khan, had allegedly become the owner of the Suit Property. However,
Mohd. Asad Khan had subsequently executed the Gift Deed in favour of the
Plaintiff. The Defendant further claimed that she had never paid any rent to
any person and that she was a victim of cheating by the Plaintiff and Mohd.
Asad Khan.
28. It was claimed that the Suit did not disclose any cause of action and
had been filed as a blackmailing tactic, to extort money from the Defendant
and to malign their reputation.
29. It was claimed that the Plaintiff had deliberately made false
statements by alleging himself to be the owner of the Suit Property, despite
having no right, title or interest therein. It was further alleged that, on the
one hand, the Plaintiff had claimed the Defendant to be a tenant, while on
the other hand, she had been alleged to be an unauthorized occupant. The
Defendant further claimed that the Plaintiff had deliberately made false
statements and was liable for criminal prosecution.
30. The Defendant asserted that she had ample documentary evidence to
disprove the averments made by the Plaintiff regarding his ownership of the
Suit Property. It was further asserted that the Suit was mala fide, malicious,
concocted and frivolous and did not disclose any cause of action.
RFA 511/2026 Page 7 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
31. On merits, the the defence as disclosed in the preliminary
objections was reaffirmed and all the assertions made in the plaint, were
denied.
32. The Plaintiff, in the Replication, reiterated the assertions made in
the plaint. It was denied that the property had been taken by Mohd. Khalil,
husband of the Defendant, from Mohd. Asad Khan or that they were
necessary parties. It was further denied that the Suit Property had ever been
mortgaged or handed over to the Defendant. The alleged Mortgage Deed
dated 26.05.2015 pertaining to a loan of Rs.11,70,000/- allegedly given by
Khalil Ahmed to Mohd. Asad Khan, pertained to Property No. 534, Second
Floor, without terrace rights, situated at Chatta Lal Mian, Darya Ganj, and
not to the suit property. It was denied that Agreement dated 26.05.2015
pertained to mortgage of the Suit Property. Moreover, this alleged Mortgage
Deed was unregistered and not properly stamped.
33. Without prejudice to the aforesaid facts, it was submitted that the
Plaintiff being the owner of the Suit Property, is not bound by the alleged
Mortgage Deed, executed between the husband of the Defendant and Mohd.
Asad Khan. The Plaintiff, being the owner of the Suit Property, claimed to
be in possession of the original ownership documents.
34. It was denied that any Agreement had been executed whereby
Mohd. Asad Khan had purchased the Suit Property from the Plaintiff and
had thereafter, rented it out or that there was any Agreement that upon
payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-, the requisite
documents of transfer would be executed, after which Mohd. Asad Khan
would become the owner of the Suit Property. It was further denied that
Mohd. Asad Khan had handed over the Suit Property to the husband of the
RFA 511/2026 Page 8 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
Defendant as security, since he had no right to do so. It was also denied that
Mohd. Asad Khan had handed over six cheques to the husband of the
Defendant.
35. The Plaintiff further claimed that he was not bound by the alleged
transactions between Mohd. Asad Khan and the husband of the Defendant,
in respect of the Suit Property. It was further asserted that, Mohd. Asad
Khan was never the owner of the Suit Property and, therefore, had no right
to transfer the same to the Defendant.
36. The Plaintiff reasserted that he had become the owner of the Suit
Property by virtue of an oral Gift made on 01.06.2013 in his favour by the
erstwhile owner, Wasiuddin, who was stated to be his relative and close
friend. Subsequently, Wasiuddin executed a registered Gift Deed dated
27.12.2018 in favour of the Plaintiff. All the remaining averments were
denied and the assertions made in the plaint were reaffirmed.
37. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed, on 27.11.2021:
“i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
recovery of possession of the Suit Property? OPPii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
arrears of rent with interest @ 12 per cent per annum
along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 12 per
cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its
realization? OPPiii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
arrears of mesne profits and occupation charges
amounting to Rs.4,42,000/- for the period 06-03-2017
till filing of the suit along with future interest @ 12 perRFA 511/2026 Page 9 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
cent per annum from date of filing of the suit till its
realization? OPPiv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
permanent injunction in respect of the Suit Property?
OPP
v. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the
present form, as prayed for? OPD
vi. Relief."
38. The Plaintiff, Mohd. Anis, examined himself as PW-1 and tendered
his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex. PW1/A, wherein he reiterated and
reaffirmed the assertions made in the plaint. He proved the certified copy of
the Gift Deed dated 27.12.2018 as Ex. PW1/1. The copy of the House Tax
Receipts was proved as Ex. PW1/2 (colly), the site plan as Ex. PW1/3, the
copy of the Lease Deed dated 02.08.2013 as Ex. PW1/4 and the copies of
the bank deposit slips along with the bank statement as Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
The electricity bill was marked as Mark-A. The legal notice dated
20.02.2017 was proved as Ex. PW1/7, reply dated 02.03.2017 as Ex. PW1/8
and the police complaints dated 20.05.2017 and 01.12.2017 were proved as
Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 respectively.
39. The Defendant examined herself as DW-1 and tendered her
evidence by way of Affidavit Ex. DW1/A. DW-2, Ashok Kumar, Record In-
charge, BSES, Kamla Market, produced the summoned record pertaining to
the electricity connection installed at Property No. 3286, Ground Floor,
Kucha Tara Chand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and proved the
application dated 25.02.2009 for installation of the electricity meter at theRFA 511/2026 Page 10 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
said address. The demand note of camp new connection of BSES along with
other connected documents was exhibited as Ex. DW2/A.
40. DW-2 (sic DW-3), Mr. Bipin Kumar Anand, General Manager,
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., brought the original record pertaining to CA No.
100413640 in the name of Mohd. Anis, plaintiff, at the address of the
property in question. He deposed that the Application for installation of the
electricity meter, was dated 25.02.2009. He further deposed that the
electricity connection had been granted to the consumer, on the basis of the
Voter ID Card and Ration Card, the same being the proof of possession of
the property.
41. The learned District Judge, after consideration of the evidence,
observed that the Defendant/Appellant, in her cross-examination, had
admitted that the Plaintiff was the owner from whom she had taken the
property on rent by virtue of the Lease Deed dated 02.08.2013 and that
possession of the suit property had been handed over to her and her husband
on the said date.
42. She had also admitted that she had been paying rent at the rate of
Rs.16,000/- per month. The Defendant had further admitted her signatures
on the Lease Deed, though she claimed that her signatures had been obtained
on the Lease Deed, on the pretext of installation of the electricity meter in
the Suit Property.
43. From the admissions made by the Appellant in her cross-
examination, it stood established that she had been inducted as a tenant in
the Suit Property by the Plaintiff on the basis of the Lease Deed dated
02.08.2013, Ex. PW1/4. No tenant can challenge the title of the landlord in
terms of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Notice ofRFA 511/2026 Page 11 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
termination dated 20.02.2017, Ex. PW1/7, had been duly served upon the
Defendant, to which a Reply Ex. PW1/8 had also been sent by the
Defendant. The term of the lease was for 11 months, after which the tenancy
became month-to-month. The service of the Notice also established the
landlord-tenant relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
44. The defence put forth by the Appellant was that a mortgage had
been created in favour of Mohd. Khalil, husband of the Appellant, vide
alleged Mortgage Deed dated 26.05.2015, as a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- had
allegedly been advanced by him to Mohd. Asad Khan. The learned District
Judge observed that the said Mortgage Deed was unregistered and
inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 read with Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. It was
further observed that there was no proof of any money having ever been
paid by Mohd. Khalil to Mohd. Asad Khan.
45. The learned District Judge further noted that there was no document
to show that Mohd. Asad Khan was ever the owner of the property in
question.
46. Accordingly, the Suit of the Plaintiff was decreed for possession,
arrears of rent @ Rs.16,000/- per month from 01.07.2016 to 16.03.2017
and further mesne profits @ Rs.17,000/- per month w.e.f. 17.03.2017,
along with simple interest @ 7% per annum.
47. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the present Regular First Appeal has
been preferred by the Appellant.
48. The grounds of challenge are that the learned District Judge
wrongly held that the Lease Deed dated 02.08.2013, Ex. PW1/4, was duly
proved and enforceable. According to the Appellant, the Plaintiff had failedRFA 511/2026 Page 12 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
to discharge the burden of proving the execution, authenticity and contents
of the said document, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
49. The entire case of the Respondent/Plaintiff rested on the Lease Deed
dated 02.08.2013, Ex. PW1/4, on the basis of which he was claiming his
status as a landlord. According to the Appellant, the Lease Deed was a
forged and fabricated document. It was claimed that Mohd. Asad Khan had
obtained the signatures of the Appellant on blank papers and that the same
had subsequently been misused. The Appellant had further explained in her
evidence, that her signatures had been obtained on the false pretext of
installation of an electricity connection.
50. Merely because the documents were exhibited, did not amount to
their proof. The Plaintiff ought to have examined independent witnesses to
prove the Lease Deed. The two attesting witnesses to the Lease Deed,
namely, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sachdeva and Mohd. Asad Khan, were not
examined. The Notary Public, who had attested the Lease Deed, was also
not examined, to prove that the documents had been signed voluntarily by
the Appellant. In the absence of any independent corroboration, the
testimony of the Plaintiff was alleged to be unreliable.
51. The learned District Judge erred in treating the admission of
signatures on the Lease Deed, as an admission of the contents thereof. The
Appellant had explained that her signatures had been obtained on the pretext
that the documents pertained to installation of an electricity meter. It was
contended that such admission could not be considered sufficient to
conclude that the Lease Deed stood proved.
RFA 511/2026 Page 13 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
52. It is further submitted that the principle of estoppel under Section
122 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has been erroneously applied
against the Appellant. The said provision applies only after the relationship
of landlord and tenant is first established, through valid evidence. When the
very question of tenancy in favour of the Appellant was disputed and
allegedly not proved, Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023, could not have been invoked.
53. The learned District Judge erroneously observed that the Gift Deed
was not relevant as in the present case, only the relationship of landlord
and tenant had to be determined.
54. The Plaintiff had admitted in his cross-examination that he did not
possess any ownership document as on 02.08.2013, which according to the
Appellant, implied that he had no right, title or interest in the property and,
therefore, could not have created a valid tenancy. The Respondent had
claimed ownership on the basis of an Oral Gift dated 01.06.2013 and a
registered Gift Deed dated 27.12.2018, the validity whereof was denied by
the Appellant.
55. The Respondent had examined only himself as PW-1 to prove the
Gift Deed. Wasiuddin, the Donor and executant of the Gift Deed, was not
examined, though according to the Appellant, he was the most material
witness to prove the Gift Deed. Furthermore, there were two attesting
witnesses to the Gift Deed, namely, Abdul Muttalib Siddiqui and Mohd.
Taslim, but neither of them was examined. Furthermore, no witness from the
office of the Registrar was examined to prove the registration of the Gift
Deed.
RFA 511/2026 Page 14 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
56. In fact, the Respondent had colluded with Mohd. Asad Khan, to
cheat the Appellant. The learned Trial Court without framing any issue with
respect to fraud, decided the case solely on the basis of disputed Lease Deed.
57. It was further contended that her husband, Mohd. Khalil, had
advanced substantial amounts to Mohd. Asad Khan, which aspect had also
not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Furthermore, the two
witnesses from the Electricity Department, i.e., DW-2 and DW-3, had
produced the records pertaining to the electricity connection in the name of
the Plaintiff in respect of the Ground Floor, whereas the Suit property was
located on the Fourth Floor. Furthermore, both Mohd. Khalil and Mohd.
Asad Khan, in whose presence the property had allegedly been handed over
to the Plaintiff, were stated to be necessary parties to the present Suit, but
had not been impleaded as parties.
58. Reliance was placed on Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain, 2009
(109) DRJ (DB), wherein this Court had held that the Plaintiff has to prove
his own case and stand on his own legs. Likewise, reliance was placed on
Sunil Dang vs. R.L. Gupta, CS(OS) 1617/2007, wherein this Court had held
that even if the Defendant is proceeded ex parte, the onus still lies heavily
upon the Plaintiff to prove his case, more so when the Defendant is
contesting the proceedings.
59. Reliance was also placed on M/s Gian Chand & Brothers & Anr. vs.
Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh, (2013) 2 S.C.R 601, wherein it was held that the
burden of proving a fact rests upon the party who substantially asserts the
affirmative issue and not upon the party who merely denies it, though the
said principle may not be universal in its application and may admit of
exceptions.
RFA 511/2026 Page 15 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
60. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment was liable
to be set aside.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
61. The Plaintiff/Respondent had sought the possession of the Suit
Property situated on the Fourth Floor, from the Defendant/Appellant, she
being a tenant in the Suit Property.
62. The case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant had been inducted
as a tenant in the Suit property vide Lease Agreement dated 02.08.2013, Ex.
PW1/4. The Defendant, DW-1, in her cross-examination admitted that, “It is
correct that the Plaintiff is the landlord and owner of the Suit property… It
is correct that the suit property was in physical possession of the Plaintiff on
01.06.2013. Vol. The Plaintiff had handed over possession of the suit
property to me on the said date… It is correct that possession of the suit
property was handed over to me by the Plaintiff on 01.08.2013.”
63. DW-1/Appellant further admitted in her cross-examination that she
had received the Legal Notice dated 20.02.2017, Ex. PW1/7, for termination
of the tenancy.
64. She also admitted that “It is correct that Mohd. Asad Khan was not
the owner of the Suit Property and he did not have any right, title or interest
in the same. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely stated in my Affidavit
that the Suit Property was taken by my husband, Mohd. Khalil from Mohd.
Asad Khan. Vol. It was taken from both, Plaintiff and Mohd. Asad Khan…It
is wrong to suggest that the Suit Property was let out to me and not to my
husband. Vol. the possession was handed over to me and my husband
jointly…It is wrong to suggest that Asad Khan never put me in possession of
RFA 511/2026 Page 16 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
the Suit Property. Vol. Both the Plaintiff and Mohd. Asad Khan put me in
possession of the Suit Property.”
65. From these admissions made by the Appellant in her cross-
examination, it emerges that the Lease Deed dated 02.08.2013, Ex. PW1/4,
was executed between Mohd. Anis, the Plaintiff, and the Appellant and the
possession of the Suit Property, was handed over to the Appellant by the
Plaintiff. The most significant admission made by the Appellant was that the
Lease Deed had her signatures.
66. Pertinently, she admitted that at the time of execution of the Lease
Deed and handing over of possession, Mohd. Asad Khan, Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sachdeva, the property dealer, as well as her husband, were present. It was
also admitted that pursuant thereto, possession of the Suit Property was
handed over to her by the Plaintiff.
67. The only defence set up by the Appellant to wriggle out of the Lease
Deed, was that her signatures on the Lease Deed had been obtained
fraudulently. At one place in the pleadings, she stated that, Mohd. Asad
Khan had obtained her signatures on blank papers, while in her testimony,
she deposed that the Respondent had obtained her signatures on the pretext
of obtaining an electricity connection in her name for the Suit Property. It is
evident that contradictory explanations had been tendered by the Defendant,
in order to explain her admitted signatures on the Lease Deed. Not only
this, her aforesaid admissions clearly established that the property had been
taken on rent from the Plaintiff, for a period of 11 months.
68. The learned District Judge rightly referred to the testimony of the
Plaintiff and the admissions made in the cross-examination, to conclude that
the Appellant had indeed been inducted as a tenant in the Suit Property.
RFA 511/2026 Page 17 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
69. The second aspect for consideration is whether the Respondent was
the landlord of the Suit Property. He had stated that the property had been
gifted to him by virtue of an Oral Gift dated 01.06.2013. The
Plaintiff/Respondent further deposed that though the possession of the
property was handed over under the Lease Deed, a registered Gift Deed
dated 27.12.2018, Ex. PW1/1, had subsequently been executed by
Wasiuddin, in favour of the Plaintiff.
70. The possession of the Respondent in respect of the Suit Property
stands unequivocally admitted by the Appellant. She, having been inducted
as a tenant by the Respondent, is estopped from challenging her status as a
tenant.
71. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the Gift Deed till date. The
Respondent had not only proved that he was the landlord, but also that he
had ownership rights on the basis of the oral Gift, which subsequently got
materialised into a written Gift Deed in 2018.
72. The Plaintiff had proved that he was the landlord and the owner of
the Suit Property. The learned District Judge has rightly referred to Section
122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides that a
tenant who has been inducted into a property by a landlord is estopped from
subsequently challenging the title of the landlord.
73. The Appellant had relied upon an Agreement dated 02.08.2013
allegedly executed between Mohd. Khalil, her husband, and Mohd. Asad
Khan, whereby a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- had allegedly been paid by Mohd.
Khalil to Mohd. Asad Khan. However, this document is also of in respect of
the Suit Property, aside from the fact that the said alleged Agreement had
not been proved on record.
RFA 511/2026 Page 18 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
74. The Defendant/Appellant had also set up a defence that upon
payment of Rs.11,70,000/- by her husband, Mohd. Khalil, to Mohd. Asad
Khan, the Mortgage Deed dated 26.05.2015 had been executed between
Mohd. Khalil and Mohd. Asad Khan. First and foremost, from the bare
perusal of the said document, it emerges that the same pertained to the
Second Floor without terrace rights of Property bearing No. 534, Chatta Lal
Mian, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, admeasuring 70 sq. yards, and was not in
respect of the Suit Property. The Mortgage Deed, as relied upon by the
Appellant to defend her possession, was of no assistance since it pertained to
a different property. Also, it pertains to the year 2015, while the defendant
had come into possession, admittedly in 2013, pursuant to execution of the
Lease deed, in her name.
75. Aside from this, admittedly, it was an unregistered document and
was not admissible in evidence in terms of Section 59 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
76. The contentions raised by the Defendant regarding the Mortgage
Deed allegedly executed in favour of her husband by Mohd. Asad Khan in
the year 2015 were legally untenable because firstly, the Mortgage Deed was
not registered; secondly, it did not pertain to the Suit Property; and thirdly,
it had neither been proved nor exhibited in evidence by the Appellant.
77. The learned District Judge, therefore, rightly concluded that the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the
Respondent stood duly proved.
78. Furthermore, from the testimony of the Plaintiff coupled with the
admissions made by the Appellant, along with the Legal Notice dated
RFA 511/2026 Page 19 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
20.02.2017, Ex. PW1/7, it stood established that the Property had been let
out at a rent of Rs.16,000/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to
Rs.17,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2014. It also stood established that the
rent had been paid up to 01.07.2016.
79. The learned District Judge thus rightly, held that the Appellant was
in arrears of rent @ Rs.16,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2016 and mesne
profits @ Rs.17,000/- per month w.e.f. 17.03.2017, along with pendente lite
interest @ 7% per annum till realization. The Suit for possession, arrears
of rent and mesne profits in favour of the Plaintiff was, therefore, rightly
decreed.
80. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby
dismissed. The pending Applications are also disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MAY 23, 2026
N/RS
RFA 511/2026 Page 20 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:14:19
